BX  9183  .H687 

1890 

C.2 

How  shall  we 

revise 

the 

Westminster 

confession 

of 

HOW  SHALL  WE   REVISE 

THE  WESTMINSTER    CONFESSION 

OF   FAITH? 


HOW   SHALL   WE    REVISE 

THE  WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION 

OF   FAITH? 


A   BUNDLE  OF  PAPERS 


BY 


LLEWELLYN  J.   EVANS  ERSKINE   N.   WHITE 

MARVIN   R.   VINCENT  CHARLES  H.  PARKHURST 

SAMUEL  M.   HAMILTON  CHARLES  L.  THOMPSON 

CHARLES   A.   BRIGGS 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1890 


COPYRIGHT,    1890, 
BY   CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS. 


PREFACE. 


There  seems  to  be  an  increasing  interest  in  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Revision  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith.  Many  papers  and  numerous  pamphlets  have  been 
published  relating  to  this  subject.  The  first  question  to 
be  determined  is  whether  there  is  to  be  a  revision  at  all. 
This  question  seems  to  have  been  decided  already  by  the 
Christian  public,  and  by  the  votes  of  the  presbyteries  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  favor  of  Revision.  It  mat- 
ters little  how  great  the  majority  for  Revision  may  be,  the 
Revision  movement  has  already  succeeded.  The  next 
question  that  arises  is,  How  shall  we  revise  the  West- 
minster Confession  ?  There  is  little  agreement  at  this 
point  among  revisionists.  It  is  important  that  this  ques- 
tion should  now  receive  some  attention.  This  question  is 
the  theme  of  the  Bundle  of  Papers  that  is  now  presented 
to  the  public  in  this  volume.  These  papers  were  prepared 
by  men  of  kindred  spirit.  Some  of  them  have  been  pub- 
lished in  other  forms  in  the  periodical  literature  of  the 
day.  Others  were  delivered  in  debate  on  the  floors  of 
presbyteries.  These  have  been  revised  by  their  authors 
for  this  volume.  But  at  least  one-half  of  the  material  was 
prepared  expressly  for  this  book,  and  now  appears  for  the 

(V) 


VI  PREFACE. 

first  time.  The  papers  have  been  carefully  selected,  and 
arranged  in  an  organic  method.  At  the  same  time,  each 
author  speaks  his  own  mind  freely,  and  is  solely  respon- 
sible for  the  views  presented  in  his  paper.  The  editor  is 
responsible  for  the  choice  of  papers,  their  grouping,  and 
the  propriety  of  their  publication. 

C.  A.   BRIGGS. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

I.   The  Advance  towards  Revision i 

By  Prof.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 

II.   Dogmatic  Confessionalism  versus  Revision      ...      34 
By  Prof.  Llewellyn  J.  Evans,  D.D. 

III.  Sovereignty  and  Freedom,  both  Essential  to  the 

System 53 

By  the  Rev.  Erskine  N.  White,  D.D. 

IV.  Paul's  Argument  in  Rom.  ix.-xi 62 

By  Prof.  Marvin  R.  Vincent,  D.D. 

V.   Divine  Mercy  morally  Obligatory 88 

By  the  Rev.  Charles  H.  Parkhurst,  D.D. 

VI.  That  Tenth  Chapter 98 

By  Prof.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 

VII.  A  Non-Growing  Creed 131 

By  the  Rev.  Samuel  M.  Hamilton,  D.D. 

VIII.   The  Confession  tested  by  Scripture 137 

By  Prof.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 

IX.   A  New  Creed 183 

By  the  Rev.  Charles  L.  Thompson,  D.D. 

X.  Appendix,  Proof-Texts  of  the  Confession  ....     193 


I. 

THE   ADVANCE   TOWARDS    REVISION.* 

BY    PROF.    CHARLES   A.    BRIGGS,  D.D. 

The  revision  of  the  Westminster  Confession  is  a  theme 
that  is  now  absorbing  the  attention  and  stirring  the  hearts 
of  Presbyterian  churches  throughout  the  world.  For  re- 
vision is  no  local  or  temporary  movement.  It  is  a  product 
of  the  evolution  of  Christian  life  and  thought  in  our  cen- 
tury. It  is  the  swell  on  the  wave  of  the  advancing  tide  of 
Christianity  that  is  sweeping  on  not  only  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  but  all  denominations  of  Christians,  towards  the 
realization  of  the  grand  ideals  of  Christian  truth,  unity, 
and  perfection. 

The  revision  movement  started  in  this  country  without 
leadership,  and  it  has  puzzled  the  leaders  of  the  church  to 
keep  abreast  of  it.  It  has  been  accompanied  by  changes 
of  attitude  and  surprises.  It  was  at  first  a  child's  cry  for 
relief  that  excited  sympathy  all  over  our  land.  It  was  but 
a  spark  last  April.  In  May,  the  General  Assembly  started 
the  flame  that  has  spread  like  fire  upon  a  prairie,  and  now 
the  whole  church  is  ablaze.  It  is  one  of  those  movements 
that  are  long  in  preparing,  and  that  suddenly  burst  forth 


*  This  article  was  delivered  as  an  address  before  the  Presbyterian  Union  of 
New  York,  December  2,  1889.  It  was  enlarged,  many  notes  were  added,  and  it  was 
then  published  in  the  Andover  Review,  January,  1890.  It  has  been  revised  again 
for  this  volume,  and  some  important  additions  have  been  made. 


2  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE.'' 

with  irresistible  might  and  omnipotent  energy.  We  are 
in  the  beginnings  of  a  theological  reformation  that  can  no 
more  be  resisted  than  the  flow  of  a  great  river. 

L      REVISION    AND    THE    SCRIPTURES.     • 

A  venerable  divine  has  recently  said  that  the  fundamen- 
tal question  in  the  revision  movement  is  whether  the  Con- 
fession is  in  accord  with  the  Scriptures.  This  is  the 
question  that  Parliament  asked  the  Westminster  divines 
when  they  sent  up  the  Confession  of  Faith,  December  4, 
1646,  after  five  months'  labor.  They  demanded  proof-texts 
for  every  statement  before  they  would  take  it  into  consid- 
eration.* Accordingly  the  divines  went  to  work  on  the 
proofs,  and  labored  until  April  26,  1647,  upon  them.  The 
Westminster  divines  set  a  bad  example  to  their  successors, 
which  they  followed  too  well ;  for  it  has  been  the  habit  of 
divines  to  construct  their  dogmas  by  logical  deductions, 
and  then  seek  support  for  them  in  the  Scriptures.  If  the 
Westminster  divines  had  put  the  Scriptures  first,  their 
definitions  might  have  been  more  Scriptural. 

One  of  the  greatest  improvements  in  modern  theology 
has  been  the  development  of  the  discipline  of  Biblical 
theology.  The  theology  of  the  Confession  was  made,  not 
from  teachings  of  Scripture  alone,  but  also  by  deductions 
from  Biblical  statements  that  cannot  be  admitted  into  a 
system  of  Biblical  theology.  The  theology  of  the  Con- 
fession is  a  system  of  speculative  theology  based  on  the 
Scriptures.  If  one  could  change  it  into  a  system  of  Bibli- 
cal theology,  it  would  be  as  great  a  transformation  as  one 
sees  when  he  removes  from  America  to  Europe. 


*  Baillie  writes :  "  Our  Assemblie,  with  much  adoe,  at  last  have  wrestled 
through  the  whole  Confession  and  all  is  now  printed.  The  House  of  Commons 
requires  us  to  put  scripture  to  it  before  they  take  it  into  consideration  ;  and  what 
time  that  will  take  up,  who  knows  ?  "  —  Letters  and  Journals,  ii.  415. 


THE   ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  3 

We  assume  that  the  Westminster  system  is  based  on 
the  Scriptures,  and  that  its  essential  and  necessary  articles 
are  in  harmony  with  the  Scriptures.  But  there  are  many 
unessential  and  unnecessary  articles  that  are  not  in  accord 
with  the  Scriptures.  There  are  other  important  doctrines 
that  are  in  the  Scriptures  and  are  not  in  the  Confession. 
An  advance  in  the  study  of  the  Bible  is  the  nerve  of  the 
revision  movement. 

II.     THE    CHURCH    HAS    CHANGED    ITS    ATTITUDE. 

The  issue  between  the  friends  and  foes  of  revision  is 
fairly  and  squarely  stated  when  it  is  said  that  it  depends 
altogether  upon  the  question  whether  the  Presbyterian 
Church  has  changed  its  attitude  toward  the  Confession  or 
not.  I  shall  endeavor  to  convince  you  that  the  church 
has  changed  its  attitude,  and  that  this  change  has  been 
thorough.  It  is  all  the  more  startling  that  this  change 
has  taken  place  silently,  gradually,  and  unconsciously,  so 
that  it  was  not  recognized  until  it  was  forced  upon  our 
attention.  You  will  not  be  surprised  that  the  dogmatic 
divines  have  unconsciously  led  the  church  away  from  the 
Standards  when  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  there 
are  more  than  eight  hundred  titles  of  books  and  tracts 
written  by  the  Westminster  divines,  the  authors  of  the 
Standards,  and,  so  far  as  one  can  tell  from  the  copious 
indexes  of  the  systems  of  theology  taught  in  our  theologi- 
cal seminaries,  the  authors  have  not  used  a  single  one  of 
them.  The  great  divines  who  composed  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  and  who  are  the  best  guides  to  its  interpretation, 
have  not  been  considered  worthy  of  mention.  It  is  very 
remarkable  that  all  their  other  writings  should  be  laid 
aside  as  worthless,  and  this  one  product  of  their  brains 
should  be  exalted  above  all  other  human  compositions. 

The   Westminster    Confession   was    composed    by   the 


4  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

Westminster  Assembly  two  hundred  and  forty-three 
years  ago.  This  Assembly  was  called  by  the  Parliament 
of  England.  It  was  designed  to  embrace  moderate  men 
of  all  parties,  selected  from  all  the  counties  of  England 
and  Wales.  Ireland  was  represented  by  its  Archbishop 
and  the  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Dublin.  Scotland  was 
represented  by  its  ablest  divines.  The  Episcopal  party 
was  represented  by  one  archbishop,  two  bishops,  several 
masters  of  colleges,  and  a  number  of  choice  scholars. 
The  Independents  were  represented  by  seven  of  the  strong- 
est men  of  their  party.  No  such  fairly  representative  body 
of  divines  was  ever  before  or  since  convened  in  Great 
Britain.  It  was  a  splendid  plan  to  unite  all  parties  in  the 
three  national  churches  of  Great  Britain  about  common 
symbols.*  But,  unfortunately,  the  king  would  not  allow 
the  Episcopal  divines  to  attend,  and  the  Assembly,  with  the 
Long  Parliament,  soon  expelled  the  Episcopal  party.  The 
Presbyterian  majority  were  intolerant  toward  the  Congre- 
gational majority,  so  that,  while  the  dissenting  brethren 
struggled  heroically  for  their  views  in  the  Assembly,  the 
hostility  of  the  Presbyterian  party  became  so  great  that 
John  Goodwin  and  Henry  Burton,  the  only  two  pastors  of 
London  churches  who  were  Independents,  were  deprived 
of  their  charges.f  And  so  the  Westminster  Symbols  be- 
came the  banners  of  the  Presbyterian  party.  What,  then, 
do  we  see  at  the  present  time }     The  Westminster  Con- 

*  Each  one  solemnly  swore  that  he  would  "  endeavor  to  bring  the  churches  of 
God  in  the  three  kingdoms  to  the  nearest  conjunction  and  uniformity  in  religion, 
confession  of  faith,  form  of  Church  Government,  directory  for  worship,  and 
catechising,  that  we,  and  our  posterity  after  us,  may  as  brethren  live  in  faith  and 
love,  and  the  Lord  may  delight  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of  us." 

t  Baillie  writes,  July  8,  1645  :  "  Blessed  be  God,  all  the  ministers  of  London  are 
for  us.  Burton  and  Goodwin,  the  only  two  that  were  Independent,  are  by  the 
Parliament  removed  from  their  places.  Seven  or  eight  preachers  that  are  against 
our  way  are  only  lecturers  in  the  city,  but  not  ministers,"  —  Letters  and  Journals, 
ii.  299. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  5 

fession  has  been  rejected  by  all  of  the  historical  churches 
of  England.  It  is  held  only  by  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  England,  a  small  church,  composed  chiefly  of  Scottish 
and  Irish  families  residing  in  England.  In  Ireland,  it  is 
the  symbol  only  of  the  Presbyterians  of  the  North.  It  is 
a  national  creed  in  Scotland  alone.  It  is  used  only  by 
Presbyterians  in  America  and  the  colonies.  Nine-tenths 
of  the  Protestants  of  Great  Britain  and  America  do  not 
adhere  to  the  Westminster  Confession.  It  has  failed  in 
its  design  of  displacing  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  It  has 
not  become  the  one  creed  of  Great  Britain.  This  is  the 
verdict  of  history  on  the  Westminster  Confession. 

The  Westminster  Confession  was  completed  December 
4,  1646.  Two  hundred  and  forty-three  years  have  passed, 
years  fraught  with  change  and  great  movements  in  phi- 
losophy, in  science,  in  art,  in  commerce,  in  industry,  and  in 
society.  Everything  has  changed  since  the  seventeenth 
century.  And  yet  there  are  some  who  think  that  theology 
has  not  changed.*  Our  Saviour  promised  his  disciples  the 
gift  of  the  divine  Spirit  to  guide  them  into  all  truth. 
Christian  history  shows  that  the  reigning  Christ  has  ful- 
filled his  promise.  The  church  advanced  through  the 
Christian  centuries  in  religion,  in  doctrine,  and  in  morals, 
down  to  the  year  1646.  The  Reformation  was  a  wonderful 
revival  and  advance  in  Christianity.  The  second  Refor- 
mation  was   a  still    further  advance.     The  Westminster 


*  These  should  listen  to  the  warning  of  Samuel  Bolton,  one  of  the  Westminster 
divines:  "  Take  heed  of  rejecting  any  doctrine  meerly  under  the  notion  of  new: 
you  may  so  reject  truth  as  well  as  errour.  It  may  be  the  doctrine  is  not  new  in 
itself,  though  new  to  you.  Against  this  rock  many  have  split  themselves,  wilfully 
shutting  their  eyes  against  the  discoveries  of  their  times,  under  the  pretence  of 
novelty.  The  most  precious  truths  that  are  have  been  in  their  generations  looked 
upon  as  new:  there  is  nothing  which  you  hold  different  from  Poperie ;  but  in  these 
generations,  when  first  they  were  revealed  and  manifested,  they  have  been  looked 
upon  and  rejected  for  novelties."  —  The  Arraignment  of  Errour,  1646,  p.  155. 


6  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

Confession  gives  us  the  high-water  mark  of  progress  up  to 
the  year  1646.  Did  our  Saviour  fulfil  his  promise  up  to 
that  date  and  then  forget  it  ?  Has  the  Holy  Spirit  been 
withdrawn  from  the  world  since  the  seventeenth  century  ? 
God  forbid  !  I  have  sometimes  thought  that  our  ultracon- 
servative  friends  do  not  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  They 
doubtless  believe  that  He  is  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity, 
but  they  have  no  practical  faith  in  his  presence  and  power 
in  the  church  of  the  day.  They  doubt  his  power  to  assure 
men  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  They  have 
no  confidence  in  his  guidance  in  the  evolutions  of  Chris- 
tian theology  in  our  century.  These  brethren  are  mis- 
taken. The  divine  Spirit  has  been  more  active  in  the  past 
three  centuries  than  ever  before.  There  never  has  been 
a  period  in  which  the  church  has  made  such  rapid  strides 
forward  as  in  the  past  one  hundred  years.  We  are  on  the 
march  to-day.  Swiftly  the  columns  advance.  It  is  the 
quickness  of  the  movement,  the  suddenness  of  the  tran- 
sition, that  is  making  it  clear  that  we  have  all  departed 
from  the  line  of  battle  of  1646;  and  that  our  detachments 
are  in  movement  in  different  stages  of  evolution  to  take  up 
their  position  in  the  new  line  of  battle  that  our  Saviour 
King  has  assigned  for  the  twentieth  Christian  century. 

The  Westminster  Assembly  prepared  six  different  doc- 
uments, and  fortified  them  all  with  proof-texts.  What 
have  we  done  with  them  .'*  The  Synod  of  New  York  and 
Philadelphia,  in  1788,  swept  these  proof-texts  all  away. 
A  committee  appointed  at  a  later  date  added  proofs  to  the 
doctrinal  standards,  but  in  such  a  slovenly  way  that  their 
work  is  not  entitled  to  the  slightest  consideration  or  re- 
spect.* These  texts  are  no  part  of  the  Constitution  as  it 
was  adopted,  and  published  by  authority  of  the  Synod. 


See  Historical  Note,  by  S.  T,  Lowrie,  Presbyieria7i  Review,  July,  1888. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  7 

The  Form  of  Government,  Directory  of  Worship,  and 
Directory  of  Ordination  were  all  discarded.  New  docu- 
ments were  composed  and  adopted  in  their  stead.  The 
American  Synod  did  not  venture  to  add  proof-texts  to 
them,  for  they  definitely  abandoned  the  jure  divino  theory 
of  church  government  and  worship,  and  established  them- 
selves on  the  ground  of  Christian  expediency. 

The  Confession  was  revised  in  three  chapters,*  and  the 
American  doctrine  of  church  and  state  was  substituted  for 
the  Westminster  doctrine.  Such  a  revision  of  the  West- 
minster standards  was  revolutionary.  But  our  Presby- 
terian fathers  had  passed  through  a  political  revolution, 
and  they  did  not  hesitate  to  make  an  ecclesiastical  revolu- 
tion. The  only  reason  that  they  did  not  make  a  doctrinal 
revolution  was  because  they  were  not  theologians,  and 
doctrines  were  not  in  debate. 

It  is  necessary  for  us  to  put  ourselves  in  the  circum- 
stances of  the  seventeenth  century  in  order  to  realize  the 
marvellous  change  that  has  taken  place  in  the  Presbyterian 
churches  since  that  time.  It  would  have  seemed  very 
strange  to  Westminster  divines  that  their  children  in  the 
nineteenth  century  should  think  doctrine  so  much  more 
important  than  practice.  It  would  have  surprised  them 
that  later  Presbyterians  could  throw  away  all  their  work 
in  church  government  and  worship,  and  then  stand  back 
in  horror  at  the  thought  of  touching  the  articles  of  faith. 
Baillie,  a  member  of  the  Assembly,  tells  us  :  "The  hearts 
of  the  divines  here  who  are  wise,  both  of  the  Assemblie 
and  city  and  elsewhere,  are  set  only  on  the  point  of  gov- 
ernment. We  are  going  on  in  the  Assemblie  with  the 
Confession,  and  could  if  need  were  shortly  end  it.     We  are 


*  These  chapters  are :  xx.  4,  which  was  amended  by  omission   of  a   clause : 
and  xxiii.  3,  xxxi.  i,  which  were  entirely  remodelled. 


8  MOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

preparing  for  the  catechise ;  but  we  think  all  is  for  little 
purpose  till  the  government  be  set  up."  *  This  was  the 
opinion  of  the  Westminster  divines.  And  in  this  they 
followed  the  old  Puritans  in  their  contest  with  Whitgift 
and  Hooker. f  But  in  these  times  it  is  thought  that  gov- 
ernment and  worship  are  for  little  purpose  till  our  doc- 
trines are  set  up ;  and  modern  Presbyterians  have  definitely 
abandoned  the  Puritan  position  of  the  Westminster  divines 
and  have  gone  over  to  Whitgift  and  Hooker. 

Baillie  describes  some  of  the  work  of  Presbyterians  in 
1644,  as  follows  :  ''Paul's  and  Westminster  are  purged  of 
their  images  and  organs,  and  all  which  gave  offence.  My 
Lord  Manchester  made  two  fair  bonfires  of  such  trinkets 
at  Cambridge."  f  He  describes  a  procession  of  lords  and 
commons,  mayor,  aldermen,  and  Westminster  Assembly 
passing  along  Cheapside  in  London,  where  a  great  bonfire 
"  of  many  fine  pictures  of  Christ  and  the  saints,  of  relicts, 
beads  and  such  trinkets  "  were  blazing  at  a  place  "  where 
Christ's  rich  cross  used  to  stand."  §  He  depicts  a  Fast 
service,  with  three  prayers  two  hours  each,  two  sermons  an 
hour  each,  besides  two  short  prayers  at  the  beginning  and 
the  end,  a  short  address  and  two  psalms,  consuming,  in  all, 


*  "  Letters  and  Journals,"  ii.  336.    January  15,  1646. 

t  As  Cartwright  says  in  reply  to  Whitgift,  "  And  it  is  no  small  injuria  which  you 
do  unto  the  word  of  God,  to  pinne  it  in  so  narrow  roome,  as  that  it  should  be  able 
to  direct  us,  but  in  the  principal  pointes  of  our  religion :  or  as  though  the  sub- 
stance of  religion,  or  some  rude  and  unfashioned  matter  of  building  of  the  church 
were  uttered  in  them,  and  those  things  were  left  out,  that  should  pertain  to  the  form 
and  fashion  of  it ;  or  as  if  there  were  in  the  Scriptures  only  to  cover  the  churches 
nakedness,  and  not  also  chaines  and  bracelets  and  rings  and  other  jewels  to  adorn 
her  and  set  her  out,  or  that  to  conclude  these  were  sufficient  to  quench  her  thirst, 
and  kill  her  hunger,  but  not  to  minister  unto  her  a  more  liberal  and  (as  it  were)  a 
more  delicious  and  daintie  diet.  These  things  you  seem  to  say  when  you  say,  that 
matters  necessary  to  salvation  and  of  Faith,  are  contained  in  Scripture ;  espe- 
cially when  you  oppose  these  things  to  ceremonies,  order,  discipline,  and  govern- 
ment." —  T.  C.    Answer  to  Whitgift,  i.  26. 

X  Ibid.,  ii.  130.     February  18,  1644.  ^  Ibid.,  ii.  134. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  9 

more  than  eight  hours.*  December  2,  1645,  ^^  writes  : 
''  The  Independents  here  plead  for  a  toleration  both  for 
themselves  and  other  sects.  .  .  .  We  hope  God  will  assist 
us  to  remonstrate  against  the  wickedness  of  such  a  toler- 
ation." f 

This  was  Presbyterianism  two  hundred  and  forty-four 
years  ago.  The  burning  of  organs  and  pictures  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  refusal  of  toleration  to  Episcopalians,  Congre- 
gationalists,  and  Baptists,  fasts  frequent  and  severe,  ser- 
mons and  prayers  of  intolerable  length,  psalm-singing  the 
only  sacred  song,  —  all  these  things  are  an  abomination  to 
us.  We  thank  God  we  do  not  live  in  such  times,  and  in 
the  society  of  such  Presbyterians. 

III.       THE    SYSTEMS    COMPARED. 

I  shall  present  to  you  evidence  to  show  that  the  Presby- 
terian churches  have  changed  in  doctrine  likewise,  and  that 
the  proportions  of  the  Westminster  system  are  not  held 
by  our  divines.  The  dogmatic  divines  are  excessive  in 
their  elaboration  of  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  the  Con- 
fession. They  neglect  the  middle  group  of  eleven  chap- 
ters ;  they  depart  from  the  chapters  on  the  church  and 
the  sacraments,  and  they  are  in  great  perplexity  as  regards 
the  two  closing  chapters  on  Eschatology.  f 


*  "  So  we  spent  nine  to  five  very  graciouslie.  After  Dr.  Twisse  had  begun  with 
a  briefe  prayer,  Mr.  Marshall  prayed  large  two  houres,  most  divinelie,  confessing 
the  sins  of  the  members  of  the  Assemblie,  in  a  wonderfullie  pathetick,  and  prudent 
way.  After,  Mr.  Arrowsmith  preached  one  houre,  then  a  psalme ;  thereafter  Mr. 
Vines  prayed  near  two  houres,  and  Mr.  Palmer  preached  one  houre,  and  Mr.  Sea- 
man prayed  near  two  houres,  then  a  psalme.  After,  Mr.  Hendersone  brought  them 
to  a  short  sweet  conference  of  the  heart  confessed  in  the  AssembUe,  and  other 
seen  faults,  to  be  remedied,  and  the  conveniencie  to  preach  against  all  sects,  espe- 
ciallie  Anabaptists  and  Antinomanians.  Dr.  Twisse  closed  with  a  short  prayer  and 
blessing."  —  /did.,  ii.  184,  185. 

t  /i>id,,  ii.  328. 

t  See  Briggs's  "  Whither,"  chap.  viii.    Charles  Scribner's  Sons. 


lO 


HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE 


Table  of   Comparisons. 


Westminster  Confession. 


7- 
8. 

9- 

10. 

II. 

12. 

13- 

14. 

16. 

17- 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 

23- 
24. 
25. 

26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 
30- 
31- 
32. 


33- 


Holy  Scripture  .     .     .     .142 

a.  God 37 

/^.  The  Holy  Trinity    .     .  8 

God's  Eternal  Decree  .     .  64 

Creation 22 

Providence 65 

Fall  of  Man,  Sin,  and  Pun- 
ishment thereof  •     •     •  35 
God's  Covenant  with  Man  56 
Christ  the  Mediator     .     .  92 

Freewill 28 

Effectual  Calling     ...  40 

Justification 49 

Adoption 14 

Sanctification     ....  25 

Saving  Faith      ....  27 

Repentance  unto  Life  .     .  38 

Good  Works      ....  70 

Perseverance      .     .  -« .     .  29 

Assurance 56 

Law  of  God 71 

Christian  Liberty    ...  60 

Worship  and  the  Sabbath  82 

Oaths  and  Vows     ...  60 

Civil  Magistrate      ...  60 

Marriage  and  Divorce       .  45 

Church 41 

Communion  of  Saints  .     .  28 

Sacraments ^^^^ 

Baptism 43 

Lord's  Supper    ....  82 

Church  Censures     ...  30 

Synods  and  Councils  .     .  38 

a.  State     of    Man     after 
Death 15 

b.  Resurrection    of    the 
Dead 11 

Last  Judgment  ....  34 

1630 


Articles 

Presbyterian 

Ch.  Eng. 


82  1 

55 

*64 

82 

64=^ 

211  3 


46 

46 


46 
92 


Dr.  Hodge. 


128 
92 
18 

37 
138 


163: 


128 

183 

68 

41 
112 

45 

115 

22 
191 

24 
96 
72 

34 
53 


30 
62 
58 


42 

14 

65 


1621 


Dr.  Shedd. 


1  These  articles  place  the  Scripture  between  the  Church  and  the  Sacraments 
as  Article  XIX. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  I  I 

The  above  table  presents  a  careful  comparison  of  the 
Westminster  Confession,  the  new  Articles  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  of  England,  and  the  systems  of  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge  and  Dr.  Shedd.  These  have  been  reduced  to  com- 
mon factors,  and  the  proportions  of  treatment  of  all  the 
topics  of  the  Confession  are  clearly  seen. 

It  is  evident  from  this  table  that  the  proportions,  of 
the  faith  in  the  Westminster  Confession  have  entirely 
changed.  New  doctrines  have  come  into  the  field,  old 
doctrines  have  been  discarded  ;  some  doctrines  have  been 
depressed,  other  doctrines  have  been  exalted.  The  sys- 
tems are  different  in  their  structure,  in  their  order  of 
material,  in  the  material  itself,  in  its  proportions,  and  in 
the   structural    principles.     The    essential   and   necessary 


2  These  articles  substitute  an  article  on  Saving  Grace  for  the  Westminster 
doctrine  of  the  Covenants. 

3  These  articles  greatly  enlarge  and  improve  Christolog)',  by  giving  three  arti- 
cles on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Work  of  Christ,  and  the  Exaltation  of  Christ. 

4  These  articles  improve  the  doctrine  of  Effectual  Calling  by  substituting  for 
the  Westminster  chapter  three  articles,  on  the  Gospel,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  Re- 
generation. Dr.  Hodge  discusses  the  subject  under  the  heads  of  Vocation  and 
Regeneration.     Dr.  Shedd  treats  it  under  the  head  of  Regeneration. 

5  This  chapte,  in  Dr.  Hodge  covers  the  whole  subject  of  Faith,  and  is  devoted 
chiefly  to  justifying  faith  rather  than  the  matter  in  the  Confession  included  under 
Saving  Faith.  Dr.  Shedd  treats  of  Faith  under  the  head  of  Conversion,  but  does 
not  go  into  the  specific  features  of  the  Westminster  definition. 

6  This  article  endeavors  to  sum  up  Christian  life  under  this  head,  and  embraces 
material  corresponding  with  several  previous  and  subsequent  chapters  of  the  Con- 
fession. Drs.  Hodge  and  Shedd  treat  of  Perseverance  in  connection  with  other 
doctrines. 

7  Dr.  Hodge,  under  this  head,  expounds  the  ten  commandments  somewhat 
after  the  manner  of  the  Larger  Catechism. 

8  These  figures  are  not  absolutely  correct,  for  fractions  have  not  been  considered. 
Furthermore,  the  different  terms  used,  and  the  arrangement  of  the  material  in  the 
systems,  make  it  difficult  to  be  exact  in  the  estimation  of  subordinate  matters.  It 
can  be  relied  on  for  purposes  of  general  survey  and  comparative  estimation.  The 
pages  of  Drs.  Hodge  and  Shedd  and  the  lines  of  the  Articles  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  of  England  have  been  brought  to  the  measurement  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Confession, 


12  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE/ 

articles  of  about  one-half  of  the  Westminster  system  are 
in  these  systems,  but  the  other  half,  with  its  essential  arti- 
cles, is  not  there. 

IV.       DECLINE     FROM    THE    WESTMINSTER    CONFESSION. 

Two  of  the  grandest  chapters  in  the  Confession  of  Faith 
are  ''the  Scriptures,"  chapter  i.,  and  ''Justification,"  chapter 
xi.  These  express  the  two  great  principles  of  Protestantism, 
after  a  long  conflict  between  Romanism  and  Puritanism 
from  1 5 17  to  1646.  They  are  the  finest  statements  of  the 
Protestant  faith.  After  the  English  revolution  the  con- 
flict with  Rome  ceased,  and  the  principles  of  Protestantism 
sank  in  relative  importance.  In  the  eighteenth  century 
Biblical  studies  died  away  in  Great  Britain,*  and  the  doc- 
trine of  Justification  was  supplanted  by  the  doctrine  of 
Regeneration,  f  The  current  theology  is  not  in  accord 
with  the  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  because 
it  lays  stress  on  extra-confessional  doctrines,  such  as  verbal 
inspiration  and  inerrancy.  J  It  substitutes  the  authority 
of  tradition  and  human  authors  for  the  authority  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scriptures  to  the  believers.  I 
agree  to  every  sentence  and  word  of  the  Westminster 
doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  but  I  denounce  the  current 
doctrines  as  contra-confessional,  and  as  changing  the  base 
of  the  Reformation.  § 

Furthermore,  the  current  theology  is  not  in  accord  with 
the  Westminster  doctrine  of  Justification,  for  it  pushes 
aside  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  ||  makes  acceptance  with  God 


*  See  Briggs's  "  Biblical  Study,"  p.  209. 

t  Briggs's  "  American  Presbyterianism,"  p.  260. 

X  Drs.  A.  A.  Hodge  and  Warfield  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  *'  a  proved  error  in 
Scripture  contradicts  not  only  our  doctrine,  but  the  Scripture  claims,  and  therefore 
its  inspiration  in  making  these  claims."  —  Pr^sdyf^rian  Review,  ii.  245. 

\  See  Briggs's  "  Whither,"  pp.  73  seq. 

II  See  Simon's  "  Redemption  of  Man,"  pp.  280,  281. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  1 3 

a  mere  judicial  affair,  and  recognizes  that  the  majority  of 
the  redeemed  are  saved  without  personal  faith.  How 
can  the  Westminster  doctrine  of  Justification  stand  when 
dogmatic  divines  leave  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  of  sin 
in  such  obscurity  in  their  systems  that  they  themselves 
think  it  unnecessary  to  put  the  term  Forgiveness  of  Sin  in 
their  indexes,*  and  when  they  teach  that  only  a  small  por- 
tion of  the  saved  are  really  justified  by  faith  .^  f  Here  is 
one  of  the  difficulties  of  the  Revision  movement.  The 
statements  of  the  Westminster  Confession  on  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Reformation  are  a  thousandfold  better  than 
anything  we  could  get  from  the  dogmatic  divines  of  our 
day. 

The  Puritan  Reformation  was  a  grand  movement  in 
Great  Britain,  which  carried  British  life  and  thought  be- 
yond the  highest  point  reached  by  the  churches  of  the 
continent.     The  principles  of  Puritanism  are  set  forth  in 


*  Forgiveness  of  Sin  and  Pardon  of  Sin  are  not  found  in  the  indexes  of  the  sys- 
tems of  Dr.  Shedd,  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  and  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge. 

The  Remission  of  Sins  is  found  in  Dr.  Shedd's  index  referring  to  a  single  passage 
ii.  392.  Here  the  author  takes  the  position  that  "  forgiveness  is  the  non-infiictlon  of 
suffering  upon  the  transgressor."  "  The  release  or  non-infliction  of  penalty  is  for- 
giveness in  the  Biblical  representation.  .  .  ."  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  says:  "God 
cannot  forgive  sin  in  any  case ;  the  sinner  may  be  forgiven,  but  the  sin  must  be 
punished,  either  in  the  person  of  the  sinner  or  his  substitute.''  —  Presbyterian  Doc- 
trine, pp.  15, 16.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says  :  "  But  pardon  does  not  produce  peace. 
It  leaves  the  conscience  unsatisfied.  A  pardoned  criminal  is  not  only  just  as  much 
a  criminal  as  he  was  before,  but  his  sense  of  guilt  and  remorse  of  conscience  are  in 
no  degree  lessened.  Pardon  can  remove  only  the  outward  and  arbitrary  penalty. 
The  sting  of  sin  remains.  There  can  be  no  satisfaction  to  the  mind  until  there  is 
satisfaction  of  justice."  —  System  of  Theology,  iii.  128.  And  thus  these  dogmati- 
cians  destroy  the  Biblical  doctrine,  which  is  expressed  also  in  the  Apostles'  Creed 
and  in  all  the  symbols  of  the  Reformation,  by  reducing  forgiveness  of  sins  to  the 
removal  of  the  penalty.  The  forgiveness  of  sins  is  the  Biblical  and  Confessional 
doctrine.  The  conception  that  forgiveness  of  sin  is  simply  the  removal  of  the 
penalty  has  no  warrant  in  Holy  Scripture. 

t  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  says  :  *'  In  the  justification,  therefore,  of  that  majority  of  the 
elect  which  die  in  infancy,  personal  faith  does  not  mediate."  —  Princeton  Review, 
1878,  p.  315. 


14  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

the  middle  group  of  chapters  of  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion, treating  of  Adoption,  Sanctification,  Saving  Faith, 
Repentance  unto  Life,  Good  Works,  Perseverance  of  the 
Saints,  Assurance  of  Grace,  Law  of  God,  Liberty  of  Con- 
science, Religious  Worship,  Lawful  Oaths  and  Vows.* 
These  were  doctrines  of  vast  importance  to  our  Puritan 
Fathers.  But  theology  and  life  in  the  eighteenth  century 
receded  from  them,  and  the  church  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury has  little  sympathy  with  them.  This  is  not  only  the 
fault  of  our  dogmatic  divines,  but  it  is  the  common  fault  of 
our  age.  This  is  clear  from  the  new  articles  of  the 
English  Presbyterian  Church.  There  are  but  three  articles 
to  represent  these  eleven  chapters  of  the  Confession,  and 
these  three  articles  are  weak  as  water  when  compared  with 
the  choice  wine  of  our  Confession.  We  would  not  consent 
to  abandon  these  grand  chapters  of  Puritanism,  for  we  are 
convinced  that  the  church  of  the  twentieth  century  will 
rise  to  them  and  build  upon  them  in  the  next  great  revival 
and  reformation  of  Christianity. 

The  Puritan  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  the  Sacraments, 
as  contained  in  five  chapters  of  the  Confession,  is  excel- 
lent. The  Presbyterian  churches  in  our  day  have  receded 
from  them.  The  doctrines  of  the  real  presence  and  sac- 
ramental grace  are  commonly  denied.  We  regard  these 
as  essential  and  necessary  articles.  They  are  bonds  of 
union  with  the  old  historic  churches  of  the  world.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Church  and  the  Communion  of  Saints  is  in 
accord  with  the  Apostles'  Creed.  It  recognizes  the  unity, 
catholicity,  and  sanctity  of  the  Christian  church,  doctrines 
which  are  much  beyond  the  scope  of  the  average  Pres- 
byterian in  our  day. 

The  two  chapters  on  Eschatology  are  better  than  any- 


*  See  Briggs's  "  Whither,"  chap.  vi. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  1 5 

thing  we  could  get  at  the  present  time.  The  whole  church 
is  in  perplexity  here.  The  conflict  with  premillenarianism 
has  resulted  in  an  undue  stress  on  the  millennium,  and  a 
neglect  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Second  Advent  of  Christ. 
The  conflict  with  Universalism  resulted  in  an  undue  stress 
upon  the  so-called  private  judgment  at  death  and  ever- 
lasting punishment,  to  the  neglect  of  the  middle  state  and 
the  ultimate  judgment.  The  relative  amount  of  space 
given  to  Eschatology  by  Dr.  Hodge  is  twice  that  of  the 
Confession,  by  the  new  English  articles  three  times,  and 
by  Dr.  Shedd  four  times.  There  has  been  a  singular  neg- 
lect of  the  descent  of  our  Lord  into  hell  for  the  purpose 
of  redemption.  But  there  has  been  an  amazing  dogmatic 
elaboration  of  the  descent  of  mankind  into  hell  for  eternal 
punishment,  far  beyond  any  warrant  in  Holy  Scripture.* 
This  elaboration  is  a  fall  from  the  height  of  the  West- 
minster theology.  The  Confession  keeps  our  minds  fixed 
on  the  second  advent  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  resurrection,  the 
judgment  of  the  Messiah,  and  the  bliss  of  heaven  and 
communion  with  God.  Here  are  vast  reaches  for  Chris- 
tian theology,  into  which  it  will  be  for  edification  to  enter. 
But  at  present  our  theologians  think  more  of  hell  than  of 


*  Dr.  Shedd,  in  his  "  Dogmatic  Theology,"  represents  that  the  clause  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  "He  descended  into  hell,"  is  a  "spurious  clause,"  and  makes  a 
polemic  against  the  doctrine  (ii.  603,  607).  He  goes  against  the  consensus  of 
modern  Biblical  scholarship  in  saying  that  Sheol  in  the  Old  Testament  "  denotes 
the  grave,"  whenever  the  righteous  are  connected  with  it  (ii,  633).  His  doctrine  of 
the  Intermediate  State  is  virtually  confined  to  this  polemic.  He  then  devotes  six 
pages  to  the  Second  Advent,  twelve  to  the  Resurrection,  four  to  the  final  Judgment, 
four  to  Heaven,  and  eighty-six  pages  to  Hell.  This  disproportionate  treatment  has 
recently  been  defended  on  the  ground  that  the  doctrine  of  Hell  is  most  in  debate  at 
present.  This  is  not  true,  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Second  Advent  is  more  in  debate. 
But  if  it  were  true,  a  system  of  dogmatic  theology  should  give  all  doctrines  their 
due  proportion  and  adequate  place  and  importance  in  the  system.  If  it  neglects 
to  do  this,  and  gives  disproportionate  treatment  to  certain  doctrines  in  which  the 
author  is  interested,  as  an  advocate,  it  ceases  to  be  a  system  of  theology,  and 
becomes  a  treatise  of  polemical  theology. 


l6  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

heaven  ;  more  of  the  private  judgment  at  death  than  the 
ultimate  judgment ;  more  of  death  than  the  advent  of 
Christ ;  more  of  a  magical  transformation  in  the  dying 
hour  than  the  discipline  of  our  Saviour  in  the  middle  state. 
It  is  clear  that  there  are  twenty  chapters  of  the  Con- 
fession that  are  in  advance  of  the  present  faith  of  the 
church.  True  progress  will  be  in  rising  up  to  them.  So- 
called  conservatives  have  quietly  laid  these  twenty  chap- 
ters on  the  shelf,  or  have  changed  their  doctrines,  and 
now  are  groaning  at  the  heterodoxy  of  those  who  desire 
a  few  changes  in  three  or  four  chapters.  This  is  the  real 
situation.  No  truly  progressive  man  will  ever  consent  to 
abandon  these  twenty  chapters  of  the  Confession,  and 
descend  from  them  to  the  miserable  malarial  swamp  of 
the  current  dogmatic  theology  on  these  subjects.  These 
chapters  are  the  pledges  of  liberty  to  the  Biblical  scholar ; 
the  charter  of  progress  to  the  sons  of  the  Reformation ; 
the  banner  of  hope  to  the  children  of  the  Puritans.  It  is 
our  determination  to  take  them  down  from  the  shelf. 

V.     THE    ADVANCE    IN    DOCTRINE. 

There  are  several  doctrines  in  which  the  modern  church 
has  advanced  beyond  the  Confession. 

The  chapter  on  God  and  the  Holy  Trinity  is  sadly 
defective.  It  is  a  decline  from  the  doctrine  of  the  ancient 
church ;  it  is  a  retreat  from  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England.  The  reason  of  this  fall  was  that 
these  doctrines  were  not  in  dispute  at  the  time.  Such 
faults  always  arise  in  polemic  creeds.  Such  creeds  are 
constructed  for  the  time.  They  fail  in  those  proportions 
of  faith  that  are  appropriate  for  all  time.  Accordingly  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was  tacked  on  as  a  third  section  of 
the  chapter  on  the  doctrine  of  God.  It  had  been  received 
as   an  inheritance.      It    was    adhered   to  as    an   orthodox 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  1/ 

dogma.  But  there  was  no  special  interest  in  it.  It  was 
not  a  livng  question.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  needed 
unfolding  to  adapt  it  to  the  new  faith  of  the  Reformation 
in  the  doctrine  of  Redemption.  But  the  Westminster 
divines  did  not  attempt  it.  The  Confession  was  no  sooner 
published  than  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  became  a  living 
issue.  John  Biddle  began  his  series  of  assaults  on  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  The  famous  book  of  Acontius  on 
the  Stratagems  of  Satan  was  translated  into  English  and 
attacked  by  that  erratic  Westminster  divine,  Cheynell.* 
This  was  but  a  prelude  to  the  Arian  controversy  in  the 
eighteenth  century.  It  was  introduced  by  a  discussion 
between  Wallis,t  a  clerk  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
and  SherlockjJ  an  Anglican  divine.  The  one  lays  undue 
stress  on  the  unity,  the  other  on  the  tripersonality  of  the 
Godhead.  Semi-Arianism  began  in  1702  with  Thomas 
Emlyn,  a  Presbyterian  pastor  of  Dublin,  who  said  that  he 
had  been  unsettled  by  reading  Sherlock.  Then  Samuel 
Clark  and  Whiston  came  into  the  field,  and  these  influ- 
enced James  Pierce,  of  Exeter,  in  171 7.  §  And  thus  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  England  was  involved  in  the  Arian 
controversy.  The  same  conflict  in  Scotland  centred 
about  the  trial  of  Professor  Simson,  of  Glasgow.  The 
result  of  this  struggle  was  that  the  Irish  Presbyterian 
Church  was  divided  ;  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  England 
became  entirely  Unitarian,  the  Church  of  Scotland  became 
saturated  with  semi-Arianism,  and  New  England  Congre- 


*  John  Biddle's  "XII  Arguments  drawn  out  of  the  Scripture :  whereon  the  com- 
monly-received opinion  touching  the  Deity  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  clearly  and  fully 
refuted,"  1647 ;  "  Confession  of  Truth  touching  the  Holy  Trinity,"  1648  ;  "  A  Two- 
fold Catechism,"  1654 ;  Acontius's  "  De  Strategematibus,"  1565 ;  "  Satan's  Strata- 
gems," 1648  ;  Francis  Cheynell's  "  The  Divine  Trinity,"  1650. 

t  John  Wallis's  "The  Doctrine  of  the  Blessed  Trinity,  briefly  explained,"  1690. 

X  William  Sherlock's  "  The  Doctrine  of  the  Trinitv,"  1690. 

§  Briggs's  "  American  Presbyterianism,"  pp.  194  seq. 


1 8  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

gationalism  gave  birth  to  American  Unitarianism.  The 
battle  with  Arianism  and  Unitarianism  taught  Presbyte- 
rians many  sad  lessons.  The  Westminster  divines  left 
their  children  a  ♦:roublesome  legacy  in  these  controversies, 
due  largely  to  their  neglect  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

The  Westminster  statement  of  the  Being  and  Attributes 
of  God  is  also  defective.  The  church  has  passed  through 
a  long  contest  with  deism,  atheism,  patheism,  and  agnosti- 
cism, in  which  the  doctrine  of  the  Being  and  Attributes  of 
God  has  been  greatly  advanced.  The  Personality  of  God, 
the  Immanence  of  God,  the  doctrine  of  the  Living  God,  a 
God  of  holiness  and  love, — these  doctrines  are  a  power  in 
recent  theology.  The  Presbyterians  of  this  century  are 
dem.anding  that  there  shall  be  some  better  confessional 
statement  than  the  Westminster  Confession  gives  us  of 
our  adoration  of  the  living  God  and  Saviour ;  our  experi- 
ence of  the  matchless  treasures  of  his  grace  and  love  for 
all  mankind  ;  and  our  worship  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 

The  doctrine  of  Creation  in  the  Confession  was  con- 
structed before  the  development  of  modern  science  began. 
Wallis,  one  of  the  scribes  of  the  Assembly,  united  with 
Robert  Boyle  in  founding  the  Philosophical  College  in 
London  in  1645.  The  Royal  Society  was  organized  in 
1663.  Then  began  that  series  of  discoveries  that  has 
made  modern  science  such  a  wonder  of  our  age,  and 
changed  the  complexion  of  the  globe.  Science  was  a 
babe  in  swaddling  clothes  in  1646.  It  is  a  giant,  conquer- 
ing and  to  conquer,  in  1890.  The  Westminster  doctrine 
of  Creation  is  mere  child's  play.  It  is  not  in  accord  with 
the  Scriptures.  Science  and  the  Scripture  are  in  much 
better  accord.  Let  any  one  read  Henry  B.  Smith's  chap- 
ter on    Christian    Cosmology,*  and  he  will  see  that  the 


*  Henry  B.  Smith's  "  System  of  Christian  Theology,"  pp.  92  seq. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  1 9 

Westminster  divines  were  only  on  the  threshold  of  the 
subject.  The  scientific  spirit  of  our  age  demands  a  better 
recognition  of  the  order  and  development  of  nature  and  of 
the  relation  of  the  Creator  to  his  Kosmos  than  we  can  find 
in  any  creed  of  the  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  century. 

The  anthropology  of  the  Confession  preceded  the  rich 
development  of  modern  philosophy.  Bacon  was  behind  the 
Westminster  divines,  but  one  can  trace  little,  if  any,  of 
his  influence  upon  them.  They  were  too  much  under  the 
influence  of  Aristotle  and  the  scholastic  methods.  There 
were  Platonists  among  them,  but  these  were  feeling  their 
way  cautiously.  Hobbes  and  Descartes  were  just  coming 
on  the  stage.  The  psychology,  ethics,  and  metaphysics  of 
the  Westminster  divines  were  sufficiently  crude.  Soon 
after  the  Assembly  adjourned,  the  Cambridge  Platonists 
came  into  power.  Then  came  the  long  development  that 
has  resulted  in  our  present  schools  of  philosophy.  The 
whole  doctrine  of  God  and  man  has  changed  in  these  evolu- 
tions of  modern  philosophy.  No  one  can  understand  the 
Westminster  standards  who  does  not  take  this  into  account. 
The  doctrines  of  Original  Sin  and  the  Freedom  of  the 
Will  have  been  the  battle-grounds  of  modern  British  and 
American  theology,  while  ethical  questions  had  the  field  in 
Germany.  The  discussions  are  deeper,  broader,  richer, 
and  more  far-reaching  than  the  Westminster  divines  could 
imagine.  The  student  who  knows  Julius  Miiller's  doctrine 
of  Sin,  and  Dr.  Shedd's  massive  contributions  to  anthro- 
pology,* sees  that  the  Westminster  divines  were  sopho- 
mores when  compared  with  the  theologians  of  our  day. 

The  Christology  of  the  Confession  is  also  defective. 
The  greatest  advance  in  modern  theology  has  been  in  its 


*  Julius  Mailer's  "  Die  Christliche  Lehre  von  der  Siinde,"  1858,  translated  in 
Clark's  Theological  Library ;  Shedd's  "  Dogmatic  Theology,"  ii.  1-168. 


20  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

doctrine  of  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Person  of  Christ  has  been  the  great  contribution  of 
modern  German  theology.  Its  results  summed  up  in  the 
splendid  work  of  Dorner  *  are  worth  all  the  writings  of  the 
Westminster  divines  combined.  British  and  American 
theology  has  unfolded  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  so 
that  that  doctrine  has  about  the  same  relative  position  of 
prominence  in  American  Presbyterian  theology  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  Decree  had  to  the  Westminster  divines. 
But  the  recent  advance  in  Christology  has  been  only  par- 
tially appropriated  by  our  American  divines.  In  some 
features,  the  Westminster  divines  are  in  advance  of  our 
dogmaticians.  In  the  stress  laid  upon  the  humiliation  of 
Christ,  they  have  neglected  the  exaltation ;  in  the  stress 
laid  upon  the  crucifixion,  they  have  neglected  the  incarna- 
tion, the  holy  life,  the  resurrection,  the  ascension,  the  reign, 
and  the  second  advent.  In  the  stress  laid  upon  compensa- 
tion and  substitution  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement, 
and  the  shedding  of  the  blood  on  the  cross,  they  have 
neglected  the  significance  of  the  Redeemer's  blood  as 
applied  to  the  heavenly  throne  and  the  believer's  heart, 
and  the  redemptive  influence  that  issues  from  his  person 
and  his  heart  of  love.  The  church  of  our  day  is  rising  to 
the  adoration  of  the  risen  and  reigning  Christ,  and  is 
beginning  to  look  again  for  his  second  advent.  We  are 
opening  our  minds  to  see  that  the  Redeemer's  work  upon 
the  cross  was  the  beginning  of  a  larger  work  in  the  realm 
of  the  dead,  and  from  his  heavenly  throne  whence  the  ex- 
alted Saviour  is  drawing  all  men  unto  himself. 

In  these  great  doctrines  of  our  religion,  —  the  Being  and 
Attributes  of  God,  the  Holy  Trinity,  Creation,  the  Nature 


*  L  A.  Dorner's  "  Entwicklungsgeschichte  der  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi," 
1851,  translated  in  Clark's  Library. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  21 

of  Man,  the  Origin  and  Development  of  Sin,  the  Person 
and  Work  of  Jesus  Christ,  —  the  church  of  our  century 
has  advanced  far  beyond  the  Westminster  Confession. 
The  definitions  of  these  chapters  are  weak  and  insuffi- 
cient. Better  statements  of  the  public  faith  of  the  church 
are  needed.  In  some  way  or  other  it  is  necessary  that  we 
should  testify  to  the  wonderful  love  of  a  living  God  and 
Saviour  to  the  world  ;  our  adoration  of  the  Holy  Trinity  ; 
our  enlarged  conceptions  of  nature  and  its  place  in  the 
realm  of  God  ;  our  experience  of  the  riches  of  divine 
grace  and  its  ample  provision  for  all  mankind  ;  and  above 
all  we  need  a  confession  in  which  Jesus  Christ,  our  Sav- 
iour^  shall  reign  supreme  from  centre  to  circumference, 
and  where  every  section,  sentence,  and  word  shall  pulsate 
with  the  heart-beats  of  our  Redeemer,  not  willing  that 
any  should  perish,  but  all  should  come  to  repentance  and 
salvation. 

Such  a  revision  can  be  made  only  in  the  form  of  a  new 
creed,  that  will  be  born  of  the  life,  experience,  and  worship 
of  our  age. 

VI.     THE    CHIEF    DIFFICULTIES. 

We  shall  now  consider  the  chapters  where  we  find  the 
greatest  difficulties  at  present. 

The  third  chapter  of  the  Confession,  on  the  Divine 
Decree,  is  a  splendid  chapter.  It  gives  us  the  result  of 
the  long  contest  of  Puritanism  with  Arminianism.  The 
English  Puritan,  Perkins,  by  his  extreme  statements  is 
largely  responsible  for  the  Arminian  controversy  that 
broke  out  in  Holland,  and  spread  over  the  Reformed 
world.  The  English  Puritans  in  general  stood  by  Per- 
kins. The  battle  was  complicated  by  the  adoption  of 
Arminianism  by  the  Anglo-Catholic  party.  The  divine 
decree  was  the  one  great  doctrinal  issue  between  Arch- 


22  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVLSE  ? 

bishop  Laud  and  the  Puritans.  That  is  the  reason  for  the 
strong,  burning,  piercing  sentences  of  the  third  chapter. 
At  the  same  time,  Bishop  Davenant  led  an  intermediate 
party,  which  was  represented  in  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly by  some  of  the  most  influential  divines.  The  doctrine 
of  the  Decree  was  framed  in  view  of  all  these  interests. 
A  real  consistent  Calvinist  does  not  stumble  at  them. 
But  there  are  not  as  many  consistent  Calvinists  as  there 
used  to  be.  Even  the  most  conservative  divines  have 
appropriated  features  of  Arminianism.  And  it  is  plain 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Decree  is  excessive  in  the  West- 
minster Confession.  It  not  only  dominates  the  third 
chapter,  but  it  controls  the  doctrine  of  Providence  in  the 
fifth  chapter,  and  reappears  wherever  it  has  a  chance 
throughout  the  Confession.  It  forces  itself  upon  us,  as 
one  determined  to  have  the  last  word  in  a  controversy. 
This  was  a  hobby  of  the  Westminster  divines,  and  they 
rode  a  high  horse  with  it.  The  two  chapters  on  the  De- 
cree and  Providence  have  nearly  twice  the  space  to  that 
given  to  the  Being  and  Attributes  of  God,  the  Trinity,  and 
Creation.  No  .  modern  theologian  gives  such  excessive 
treatment  to  the  divine  Decree.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  gives 
one-fourth  of  the  space  to  the  Decree  and  Providence  that 
he  gives  to  the  other  parts  of  the  doctrine  of  God.  Dr. 
Shedd  gives  but  one-fifth  the  space.  If  the  Decree  were 
in  the  same  proportions  of  the  doctrine  of  God  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  that  it  is  in  these  divines,  seven 
sections  would  be  stricken  out,  and  it  would  be  reduced  to 
the  first  section.  And  then  it  would  have  equal  space  to 
that  given  to  the  Ploly  Trinity.  Is  the  Divine  Decree 
a  more  important  doctrine  than  the  Trinity  ?  The  West- 
minster divines  seemed  to  think  so.  But  modern  Presby- 
terians have  advanced  to  a  better  conception  in  that  they 
have  exalted  the  Trinity  and  depressed  the  Decree. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  23 

The  chapter  on  Effectual  Calling  is  the  one  that  gives 
the  greatest  difficulty  at  the  present  time,  because  it 
teaches  the  damnation  of  non-elect  infants  and  of  the 
entire  heathen  world. 

Dogmaticians  have  endeavored  to  avoid  the  plain  mean- 
ing of  the  passage  by  teaching  that  ''elect  infants  "  means 
all  infants,  or  that  infants  are  elect  as  a  class,  going  over 
to  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  election  for  babes,  while  they 
cling  to  Calvinism  for  adults. 

The  Westminster  divines  did  not  know  what  they  were 
about  when  they  framed  these  definitions.  They  made 
logical  deductions  from  other  doctrines  without  Scripture 
warrant.  Logical  deductions  are  of  value  in  theological 
speculation  if  indulged  in  to  a  moderate  extent.  They  are 
much  easier  than  the  inductive  study  of  the  Scriptures 
and  Christian  history.  There  are  few  dogmaticians  who 
are  not  tempted  to  push  these  deductions  until  they  lodge 
in  absurdities.  They  forget  that  they  are  not  dealing  with 
axiomatic  truth,  but  with  premises  that  are  only  partially 
and  relatively  true,  and  that  are  ever  changing  with  the 
progress  of  human  knowledge.  The  Westminster  divines 
did  not  escape  these  faults  in  their  construction  of  our 
standards.  They  committed  the  fault  to  which  Samuel 
Bolton,  one  of  their  number,  called  attention  : 

"We  have  handled  much  of  this  divinity  in  our  times,  first  we  have 
drawn  platforms  out  of  the  word,  then  built  upon  them,  and  drawn 
deductions  and  consequences  from  them,  and  then  consequence  from 
those  consequences,  till  at  last  they  be  nothing  agreeable  to  the  origi- 
nall  the  word  of  God.  Now  God  suffers  errours  to  arise,  most  of  which 
will  be  found  to  be  bottomed  upon  false  deductions  and  consequences 
drawne  out  of  the  word,  many  opinions  built  and  fastened  on  them. 
And  God  suffers  this,  to  bring  us  back  to  the  original  the  word  of  God, 
that  there  we  might  rectifie  all."'  —  Arraignment  of  Erroicr,  1646,  p.  16. 

We  should  bear  in  mind  that  in  the  seventeenth  century 
the  entire  population  was  in  communion  with  the  national 


24  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  .'' 

churches,  and  that  all  children  were  baptized.  The  West- 
minster divines,  many  of  them  at  least,  believed  with  their 
assessor.  Dr.  Burgess,  in  the  baptismal  regeneration  of 
elect  infants.*  They  did  not  believe  that  baptism  worked 
ex  ope7'e  operato,  and  therefore  they  held  that  some  of  the 
baptized  were  not  regenerated,  and  that  some  were  regen- 
erated without  baptism.  In  this  respect,  they  made  an 
advance  beyond  the  common  doctrine  at  that  time,  that 
only  the  baptized  infants  could  be  saved.  Unbaptized  and 
non-elect  infants,  to  them,  simply  meant  the  children  of 
the  heathen  and  a  few  revolutionary  Anabaptists.  They 
did  not  think  that  it  was  any  worse  to  damn  heathen  babes 
than  to  damn  their  fathers  and  mothers,  and  sisters  and 
brothers.  In  this  respect,  we  confess  that  many  of  us 
agree  with  them.  The  modern  revolution  of  opinion  that 
has  brought  in  the  new  doctrine  of  the  universal  salvation 
of  infants  is  due  to  the  historic  change  in  the  dissenting 
churches.  Large  numbers  of  Baptists  and  Friends  in  the 
eighteenth  century  refused  to  baptize  their  children.  The 
Presbyterian  and  Congregational  churches  declined  to  bap- 
tize the  children  of  those  who  were  not  communicants,  and 
these  they  limited  to  those  who  would  subscribe  to  their 
covenants  and  submit  to  their  examinations  and  discipline. 
Accordingly,  these  strict  rules  for  church  membership 
made  an  entire  change  in  the  Protestant  world.  In  the 
eighteenth  century,  a  large  proportion  of  the  people  were 
excluded  from  communion  with  the  churches,  and  mil- 
lions of  babes  in  Christian  lands  were  unbaptized.  Were 
these  children  to  be  damned  because  their  parents  declined 
the  obligations  of  church  membership  in  these  sectarian 
churches,  and  because  these  churches  refused  them  bap- 
tism }     So  soon  as  the  church  squarely  faced  the  problem. 


♦Burgess's  "  Baptismal  Regeneration  of  Elect  Infants,"  Oxford,  1629. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  2$ 

it  answered  it.  Infant  baptism  sank  in  importance,  and 
infant  salvation  rose  superior  to  all  rites  and  ceremonies. 
The  church  changed  its  doctrine,  and  the  Westminster 
statements  became  repulsive. 

But  what  can  we  do  about  it .''  We  have  a  new  doc- 
trine ;  but  we  cannot  prove  it  from  Scripture  ;  we  have  not 
brought  it  into  harmony  with  other  Christian  doctrines. 
We  cannot  put  the  new  doctrine  into  the  Confession  with- 
out changing  other  doctrines  of  greater  importance.  The 
problem  is,  how  are  these  infants  saved  ?  Dr.  Hodge 
saves  them  without  faith,  and  so  undermines  the  doctrine 
of  Justification  by  Faith.  Dr.  Strong  thinks  that  they  are 
regenerated  so  soon  as  they  see  Christ,  and  believe  on 
Him  after  death,  and  thus  extends  regeneration  into  the 
middle  state.*  Many  divines,  German,  English,  and  Amer- 
ican, think  they  have  a  probation  in  the  middle  state. 
There  are  some  serious  questions  to  be  settled  before  this 
new  doctrine  can  go  into  a  public  confession  of  faith. 

It  is  very  much  the  same  with  the  doctrine  of  the  dam- 
nation of  the  heathen.  The  Westminster  divines  knew 
but  little  of  heathenism.  The  heathen  were  to  them  the 
Turks,  the  enemies  of  Christ  and  his  church,  and  a  few 
negroes  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  and  Indians  in  America 
whom  they  were  inclined  to  identify  with  the  lost  tribes  of 
Israel.  They  knew  nothing  of  the  countless  millions  of 
Asia,  Africa,  America,  and  the  islands  of  the  sea,  as  these 
have  been  revealed  to  us  by  modern  travellers  and  modern 
commerce.  They  were  not  straitened  by  this  doctrine  as 
we  are.     What  man  or  woman  can  for  a  moment  contem- 


* "  Since  there  is  no  evidence  that  children  dying  in  infancy  are  regenerated 
prior  to  death,  either  with  or  without  the  use  of  external  means,  it  seems  most 
probable  that  the  work  of  regeneration  may  be  performed  by  the  Spirit  in  connec- 
tion with  the  infant  soul's  first  view  of  Christ  in  the  other  world."  —  A.  H.  Strong's 
Systematic  Theology,  p.  357.     Rochester,  1886. 


2.6  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

plate  the  eternal  damnation  of  these  countless  millions  of 
heathen,  now  living,  far  exceeding  the  number  of  Chris- 
tians, men  and  women  who  have  never  heard  the  Gospel, 
without  crying  from  the  bottom  of  his  soul,  God  forbid! 
Our  God  and  Saviour  could  not  do  such  a  thing.  Modern 
divines  are  seeking  earnestly  for  some  way  in  which  to 
save  the  heathen.  Some  would  save  them  by  faith  in  the 
implicit  Christ,  that  is,  in  God  so  far  as  He  reveals  himself 
unto  them.  This  is  a  new  doctrine.  Where  is  the  Scrip- 
ture for  any  salvation  apart  from  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.-* 
A  recent  speculator  gave  them  a  chance  for  a  saving  vision 
of  Christ  between  breath  and  death.  German  divines  look 
for  relief  to  a  probation  in  the  middle  state.  There  are 
important  problems  to  be  solved  before  this  doctrine  of 
the  salvation  of  the  heathen  can  be  put  into  a  public  con- 
fession of  faith. 

If  we  cannot  tolerate  in  the  Confession  these  doctrines 
of  the  damnation  of  the  heathen  and  non-elect  infants,  now 
that  none  of  us  believe  in  them,  there  is  no  other  way  than 
to  blot  out  these  sections  altogether.  We  cannot  intro- 
duce new  doctrines  where  we  lack  warrant  from  Scripture, 
and  we  are  unable  to  harmonize  them  with  other  confes- 
sional doctrines. 

But  even  if  these  awkward  doctrines  were  removed,  this 
chapter  would  not  be  satisfactory.  The  doctrine  of  effect- 
ual calling  has  passed  out  of  the  field  of  modern  theology, 
and  regeneration  has  taken  its  place.  Regeneration  was 
a  term  irsed  by  the  older  theologians  in  connection  with 
infants  and  baptism.  The  great  movement  called  Meth- 
odism, that  arose  in  the  eighteenth  century,  brought  the 
doctrine  of  regeneration  into  prominence,  and  the  whole 
attitude  of  the  church  to  this  question  has  changed.  The 
great  question  of  salvation  is  no  longer  justification  and 
effectual  calling,  but  regeneration  and  the  experience  of 
faith. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  2/ 

The  Westminster  Confession  is  defective  in  that  it  has 
no  chapter  on  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  taught  in  several  chapters  of  the  Con- 
fession under  the  heads  of  other  doctrines,  but  this  has 
been  overlooked  by  the  dogmaticians  and  the  ministry  who 
follow  them.  It  is  one  of  the  features  of  modern  progres- 
sive theology  that  it  lays  great  stress  on  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  new  articles  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
of  England  have  made  an  improvement  by  treating  the 
material  of  the  tenth  chapter  in  three  chapters,  one  on  the 
Gospel,  another  on  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  a  third  on  Regen- 
eration. This  is  more  in  accord  with  the  faith  of  progres- 
sive theologians  in  our  day,  and  shows  how  far  modern 
Presbyterianism  is  in  advance  of  the  Westminster  divines. 

The  chapter  on  Marriage  and  Divorce  is  not  in  accord  with 
present  views  in  the  church.  It  has  recently  been  amended 
by  striking  out  the  prohibition  of  marriage  with  a  deceased 
wife's  sister.  But  the  whole  reference  to  Levitical  laws  of 
marriage  is  wrong.  The  Levitical  law  is  no  longer  binding 
on  Christians.  The  statement  that  "  such  as  profess  the 
true  reformed  religion  should  not  marry  with  infidels, 
papists,  or  other  idolaters  "  is  not  justified  by  the  Word  of 
God,  is  a  slander  upon  Roman  Catholic  Christians,  and  is 
unworthy  of  a  place  in  a  Christian  creed.  No  one  thinks 
of  such  limitations  of  marriage  in  our  times.  The  mar- 
riage law  has  no  rightful  place  in  a  confession.  Its  place 
there  was  due  to  the  conflict  with  John  Milton  in  1645. 

VII.       HOW    SHALL    WE     REVISE  ? 

There  are  several  chapters  that  give  real  difficulty  to  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  there  is  a  strong  and  widespread 
cry  for  relief  from  them.  It  is  not  easy  to  remove  the  diffi- 
culties from  these  chapters.  We  have  to  consider  amend- 
ment by  omission,  insertion,  and  reconstruction.     There- 


28  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

fore  many  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  wisest 
method  is  to  make  the  revision  in  the  form  of  a  new  and 
simple  creed.  Who  can  get  up  any  enthusiasm  over  patch- 
ing up  an  old  creed  ?  When  the  knife  is  in  hand,  one 
thrusts  it  in  here,  another  there,  until  the  Confession  is  as 
full  of  knives  as  St.  Sebastian  with  arrows.  But  a  new 
creed,  a  simple  devotional  statement  of  our  faith,  —  we  all 
need  it  for  the  education  of  our  children,  for  the  training 
of  young  converts,  for  the  concert  of  public  worship.  A 
creed  that  will  express  the  faith,  life,  and  devotion  of  the 
present  time,  born  of  our  experience  and  needs,  is  a  grand 
ideal,  worthy  of  the  effort  and  enthusiasm  of  a  great  church  ; 
a  plan  of  campaign  about  which  it  is  practicable  to  rally  the 
Presbyterian  and  Reformed  world. 

This  new  creed  should  not  displace  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession, but  be  a  supplementary  and  congregational  symbol. 
As  we  already  have  a  Confession  of  Faith  and  two  cate- 
chisms, there  is  no  sufficient  reason  why  we  should  not 
have  a  popular  congregational  creed  that  will  drive  into 
everlasting  perdition  the  thousand  and  more  crude,  ill- 
digested  things  that  are  now  in  use  in  our  congregations. 

If  we  keep  the  new  creed  strictly  in  line  with  the  Con- 
fession, insisting  that  all  the  essential  and  necessary  arti- 
cles of  the  Confession  shall  have  a  place  therein,  we  shall 
avoid  those  serious  omissions  that  spoil  the  new  articles  of 
the  English  Presbyterian  Church,  and  at  the  same  time 
we  may  insert  those  new  doctrines  that  constitute  such  an 
excellent  feature  of  these  new  articles.  We  shall  then 
have  several  grades  of  doctrine  for  all  classes  of  our  peo- 
ple,—  a  maximum  and  minimum  of  doctrine.  We  may 
then  advance  into  the  conflicts  of  the  twentieth  century 
with  a  new  banner  expressing  the  living  issues  of  our 
times  streaming  in  the  midst  of  the  old  battle-flags  that 
have  come  down  to  us  from  the  seventeenth  century. 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  29 

The  revision  movement  in  the  American  Presbyterian 
Church  began  with  a  call  for  changes  in  a  few  sections. 
It  has  already  reached  a  second  stage,  in  which  the  ques- 
tion of  a  new  creed  has  become  prominent.  It  is  forced 
by  the  circumstances  of  the  case  to  advance  to  a  third 
stage.  The  terms  of  subscription  are  the  real  difficulty  in 
the  situation.  If  we  are  to  have  a  new  creed,  are  we  to 
subscribe  to  the  old  or  to  the  new,  or  to  both  ?  This 
question  must  be  faced  before  many  conservative  men  will 
be  ready  to  advocate  the  new  creed.  We  venture  to  say 
that  the  terms  of  subscription  are  the  key  to  the  history  of 
the  American  Presbyterian  Church,  and  in  some  respects 
of  the  history  of  British  Christianity  since  the  Reforma- 
tion. Party  lines  are  ever  drawn  here,  whatever  may  be 
the  ostensible  lines  of  division.  The  battle  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church  since  1729  has  been  a  battle  between  loose 
subscription  and  strict  subscription.  We  cannot  solve 
this  great  problem  of  the  revision  of  our  standards  and 
ignore  this  fundamental  question.  At  the  root  of  all  our 
difficulties  at  the  present  time  lies  our  indefinite  and  vari- 
ously interpreted  term  of  subscription.  We  are  between 
the  advocates  of  loose  subscription  and  the  promoters  of 
rigid  subscription.  There  is  a  middle  way  that  is  safe  and 
honest, — the  way  of  definite  subscription. 

The  present  term  of  subscription  is  a  torture  to  tender 
consciences.  It  is  a  bar  of  iron  to  rigid  Calvinists  to  ex- 
clude those  who  do  not  agree  with  them  from  the  church. 
It  is  a  rope  of  sand  to  loose  thinkers  who  are  determined 
to  think  and  do  as  they  please  in  the  church.  The  term 
of  subscription  means  one  thing  in  western  Pennsylvania, 
another  thing  in  central  New  York.  It  is  one  thing  in 
Baltimore,  another  thing  in  our  metropolis.  Presbyterian- 
ism  changes  its  complexion  as  we  pass  from  State  to  State 
and  from  city  to  city.     The  real  test  of  orthodoxy  in  the 


^// 


30  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

Presbyteries  is  not  the  Westminster  Confession  in  its  his- 
toric sense,  —  is  not  the  term  of  subscription  in  its  histori- 
cal meaning.  It  is  the  system  of  doctrine  held  by  the 
majority  of  the  ministers,  and  the  term  of  subscription  as 
interpreted  by  them.  It  is  in  general  the  systems  of 
doctrine  of  American  dogmaticians,  with  such  measure  of 
departure  therefrom  as  the  majority  of  a  Presbytery  may 
deem  it  wise  to  allow. 

The  Westminster  Confession  was  framed  by  divines  who 
had  no  thought  of  requiring  subscription  to  it.  Antony 
Tuckney,  one  of  the  most  influential  Westminster  divines, 
tells  us :  *'  In  the  Assemblie  I  gave  my  vote  with  others 
that  the  Confession  of  Faith  put  out  by  Authoritie  should 
not  be  either  required  to  be  sworn  or  subscribed  to ;  we 
having  been  burnt  in  the  hand  in  that  kind  before,  but  so 
as  not  to  be  publickly  preached  or  written  against."  * 

The  Westminster  Directory  of  ordination  does  not 
require  subscription  to  the  Confession.  The  dissenting 
brethren  representing  Congregationalism  delayed  the 
organization  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  England  so 
long  that  it  became  impossible  to  construct  it.  If  those 
who  dissented  from  the  doctrinal  articles  had  prolonged 
the  debates,  the  Confession  would  never  have  been  com- 
posed. The  Assembly  would  have  been  forced  to  a 
shorter  and  simpler  creed,  or  they  would  have  gone  to 
their  homes  without  agreement.  Subscription  was  never 
used  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  England.  Subscrip- 
tion was  not  used  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Ireland 
at  the  time  when  Francis  Makemie  came  to  assist  New 
England  divines  in  laying  the  foundations  of  the  Ameri- 
can Presbyterian  Church.     Subscription  was   imposed  on 


*  "  Eight  Letters  of  Dr.  Antony  Tuckney  and  Dr.  Benjamin  Whichcote,"  p.  76, 
ndon.  ivCQ. 


London,  1753 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  3 1 

the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  in  1693,  by  Parlia- 
ment, in  the  interest  of  breadth  and  toleration.  The 
revolution  of  1688  transformed  the  Episcopal  Church  of 
Scotland  into  a  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland.  The 
term  of  subscription  was  designed  to  protect  those  of  the 
Episcopal  minority  who  were  willing  to  conform,  and  to 
protect  them  from  the  intolerance  of  the  Presbyterian 
majority.  Terms  of  subscription  devised  in  the  interest 
of  comprehension  and  liberty  were  afterwards  used  as 
means  of  bondage,  torture,  and  exclusion.  The  American 
Presbyterian  Church  in  1729  adopted  the  Westminster 
standards  in  a  catholic  spirit.*  They  adopted,  not  the 
whole  doctrine,  but  the  system  of  doctrine ;  not  all  the 
articles,  but  the  essential  and  necessary  articles.  At 
the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Confession,  they  allowed 
exceptions  to  the  doctrine  of  two  different  chapters,! 
showing  in  concrete  cases  that  they  used  articles  in  a 
broad  sense,  and  that  we  are  justified  in  rejecting  not 
only  clauses,  but  sections  of  chapters,  so  far  as  these  are 
not  essential  to  the  Westminster  system.  This  historical 
interpretation  of  the  terms  of  subscription  is  the  law  of 
the  American  Presbyterian  Church,  and  gives  the  rule  for 
the  action  of  its  Presbyteries. 

The  term  adopted  in  1788  is  as  follows  :  ''  Do  you  sin- 
cerely receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this 
church  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures  V  This  is  not  so  clear  as  it  ought  to  be. 
It  might  be  made  more  definite  by  inserting  its  historic  in- 
terpretation into  it.  By  using  the  phrases  of  the  Adopting 
Act,  the  implicit  meaning  may  be  made  explicit  in  some 
such  way  as  this  :  ''  Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt 
the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Westminster  Con- 


*  Briggs's  "  American  Presbyterianism,"  pp.  216  seq.        f  Chaps,  xx.  and  xxiii. 


32  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVLSE  ? 

fession,  as  being  in  its  essential  and  necessary  articles  the 
doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  ? "  If  the  term 
could  be  thus  amended,  young  men  and  elders  would  know 
what  they  were  subscribing  to.  They  would  know  that 
it  was  not  the  system  of  Turretin,  or  Charles  Hodge,  or 
H.  B.  Smith,  or  W.  G.  T.  Shedd,  but  the  Westminster  Sys- 
tem, and  that  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  that 
system  are  the  only  ones  to  which  they  are  bound.  The 
terms  of  subscription  and  Presbyterial  examinations  have 
been  too  often  used  as  bars  of  authority  to  exclude  from 
the  church,  when  they  ought  to  be  pledges  of  liberty  to 
invite  men  into  the  church  and  make  them  feel  at  home 
therein,  within  the  Hmits  of  the  essential  and  necessary 
articles  of  the  Westminster  system. 
I  The  first  step  in  revision,  therefore,  should  be  to  revise 

the  terms  of  subscription,  and  make  them  definite,  so  that 
the  subscriber  would  know  that  he  was  subscribing  to  the 
essential  and  necessary  articles  of  the  Westminster  system. 
The  second  step  should  then  be  to  define  what  these 
essential  and  necessary  articles  are.  This  may  be  done  in 
the  new  creed.  The  new  creed  should  (i)  set  forth  the 
essential  and  necessary  articles  of  the  Confession,  and 
omit  all  unessential  and  unnecessary  articles ;  (2)  give 
adequate  expression  to  those  doctrines  that  have  risen  into 
prominence  since  the  Westminster  Confession  was  com- 
posed. The  new  creed  would  thus  be  of  the  nature  of  a 
declaratory  act  in  the  form  of  a  devotional  and  a  congre- 
gational creed.  It  would  give  relief  not  only  at  two  or 
three  points,  as  does  the  Declaratory  Act  of  the  United 
Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland,  but  it  would  give  relief 
at  all  points,  for  it  would  be  as  full  and  explicit  as  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  of  our  day  deems  it  wise  to  express  its  faith. 
In  our  opinion  it  would  be  best  not  to  touch  the  West- 
",   minster  Confession,  but  to  give  our  strength  to  the  con- 

Hr' 


THE    ADVANCE    TOWARDS    REVISION.  33 

struction  of  a  new  creed.  It  is  evident,  however,  that 
there  are  statements  in  the  Confession  that  are  so  offen- 
sive to  many  of  our  best  ministers,  elders,  and  people,  that 
there  is  serious  danger  of  losing  them  from  the  church. 
It  is  the  duty  of  a  Christian  Church  to  take  stumbling- 
blocks  out  of  the  way.  Our  Saviour  calls  those  children 
of  Gehenna  who  strove  to  put  barriers  in  the  way  of  en- 
tering his  kingdom.  There  are  other  synagogues  of 
Satan  than  the  Church  of  Rome,  there  are  other  Anti- 
christs than  the  Pope,  there  are  other  idolaters  than 
Romanists.  There  are  those  who  make  an  idol  of  the 
Westminster  Confession.  There  are  those  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church  who  have  the  antichristian  spirit  of  intoler- 
ance and  persecution.  Even  a  Presbyterian  church  may 
become  a  synagogue  of  Satan  by  excluding  those  who  be- 
long to  Jesus  Christ.  The  Presbyterian  Church  was  not 
organized  for  the  sake  of  conserving  the  Confession.  The 
Confession  was  made  by  the  church  and  for  the  church. 
It  has  been  revised  in  the  past.  It  will  be  revised  again 
and  again,  if  necessary,  to  relieve  tender  consciences.  God 
forbid  that  it  should  ever  be  a  yoke  of  bondage  and  a  staff 
for  oppression  ;  therefore  remove  the  offensive  statements. 
This  may  be  done  for  the  most  part  by  excision.  Some  of 
us  shrink  from  the  work  of  insertion  and  reconstruction. 
But  in  Christ's  name  let  us  go  forward  and  give  our  young 
men  and  elders  the  relief  they  demand.  We  believe  that 
the  revision  movement  is  born  of  God.  It  will  be  guided 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  a  great  step  toward  a  better 
future.  It  is  a  preparation  for  a  new  reformation  of  the 
church.  It  is  in  the  direction  of  Christian  harmony,  catho- 
licity, and  unity.  Jesus  Christ  is  at  the  head  of  this  move- 
ment ;  we  shall  do  well  if  with  open  minds  and  hearts  we 
look  for  His  word  and  follow  faithfully  His  call. 


II. 


DOGMATIC    CONFESSIONALISM   VERSUS 
REVISION. 

BY   PROF.  LLEWELLYN  J.  EVANS,    D.D. 

The  case  against  Revision  of  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion has  been  stated  and  argued  by  three  of  the  leading 
theologians  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  —  by  Dr.  Shedd, 
in  an  article  published  some  time  ago  in  the  New  York 
Evangelist ;  *  by  Dr.  DeWitt,  of  Chicago,  in  the  Presby- 
terian Review,  who,  however,  it  should  be  noted,  has  since 
pronounced  in  favor  of  a  supplementary  declaration  ;  and 
by  Dr.  Patton,  in  the  paper  read  by  him  before  the  Presby- 
terian Social  Union  of  New  York,  and  published  in  The 
Independent  of  December  5th.  What  has  been  left  unsaid 
against  Revision  by  this  distinguished  combination  is  pre- 
sumably not  worth  saying.  What  they  have  said  is  pre- 
sumably the  strongest  and  the  best  that  can  be  said  in  favor 
of  leaving  our  noble  confessional  monument  untouched. 
Speaking  generically,  and  with  some  individual  qualifica- 
tions, their  protest  may  be  viewed  as  the  protest  of  dogma ; 
hence  at  once  its  strength  and  its  weakness.  A  compara- 
tive analysis  of  this  protest  may  have  its  uses  for  the 
discussion. 

Such  an  analysis  thoroughly  carried  out  would  disclose 


*  This  has  been  republished  in  a  pamphlet  entitled  The  Proposed  Revision  of 
the  Westminster  Standards,  New  York,  Charles  Scribner's  Sons. 
34 


DOGMATIC    CONFESSION ALISM    VERSUS    REVISION.  35 

a  set  of  psychological  phenomena  in  the  region  of  dog- 
matic confessionalism,  which,  did  space  allow,  would  be 
a  highly  interesting  and  instructive  study.  A  few  of 
these  phenomena  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice  as  they 
cross  our  path  ;  many  more  we  must  regretfully  pass  by. 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  three  lines  of  confessional  apol- 
ogetics under  consideration  start  from  a  common  centre. 
Each  of  our  champions  is  a  worshipper  of  the  centuries, 
and  well-nigh  the  first  utterance  of  each  is  a  pathetic  ex- 
pression of  centuriolatry.  Standing  under  the  shadow, 
not  indeed  of  the  Pyramid  of  Cheops,  with  ''forty  centu- 
ries looking  down  "  from  its  summit,  but  of  the  Towers  of 
Westminster,  v/ith  its  two  and  a  half  centuries  looking 
down  upon  us,  they  are  transfixed  into  petrifactions  of 
wonder,  love,  and  praise.  "Revision  is  inexpedient,"  says 
Dr.  Shedd,  "  because  in  its  existing  form,  as  drawn  up  by 
the  Westminster  Assembly,  the  Confession  has  met,  and 
well  met,  all  the  needs  of  the  church  for  the  past  two  cen- 
turies.  What  is  there  in  the  condition  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  to-day  that  makes  the  old  Confession  of  the  past 
two  hundred  years  inadequate  as  a  doctrinal  standard  t " 
"  Its  antiquity^'  says  Dr.  DeWitt,  "  and  its  .survival  united, 
entitle  it  to  remain  unamended,  except  in  the  face  of  the 
clearest  necessity  for  revision."  "  It  is  not  denied,"  says 
Dr.  Patton,  '*  that  there  are  men  among  us  who  by  making 
free  use  of  the  materials  already  existing  in  the  Confes- 
sion, are  abundantly  equal  to  the  task  of  preparing  a  more 
compact,  a  more  logical,  and  in  some  respects  a  more  satis- 
factory confession.  But  they  cannot  write  two  hundred 
years  of  history  into  it."  This  attitude  of  mind  is  charac- 
teristic and  noteworthy.  For  anything  at  all  parallel  to  it 
we  must  go  back  to  Ancient  Egypt.  There  it  reached  its 
highest  and  perpetual  symbol  in  the  mummy. 

The  worship  of  fixity,  the  cult  of  immobility,  the  ^^  As- 


36- 

it-was-in-the-beginnmg-is-now-and-ever-shall-be  "  of  the  dox- 
ology  metamorphosed  into  the  ''  As-it-was-in-the-beginning- 
is-now-and-ever-shall-be  "  of  dogmatism  —  what  is  this  but 
the  Egyptian  type  of  mind  under  Western  skies  ?  It  is  the 
mental  condition  which  originates  mummies.  Under  its 
touch  the  Westminster  Confession  would  soon  become  a 
mummy  of  the  first  class.  The  Temple  of  History  is  to 
its  vision  a  vast  Museum  of  Mummies,  the  "survivals"  of 
the  centuries,  inviolable  because  old.  The  old  definition 
of  history  as  "  philosophy  teaching  by  example  " — teach- 
ing that  is  how  to  advance,  to  make  improvements,  to 
amend  our  formulas  of  thought,  our  rules  and  methods  of 
action,  is  quite  at  fault.  The  great  lesson  of  history  is 
rather  that  improvements  are  needless.  The  very  fact 
that  things  are  as  they  are,  is  sufficient  demonstration  that 
things  are  as  they  should  be.  What  has  survived  the  past 
is  entitled  ipso  facto  to  be  let  alone  by  the  present.  What 
has  met  the  wants  of  two  hundred  years  should  be  pre- 
sumed adequate  to  the  wants  of  two  thousand  years.  The 
more  centuries  and  millenniums  you  can  "  write  into " 
your  mummy,  the  more  admirable  will  it  be  as  a  mummy, 
and  the  less  need  that  it  should  ever  be  anything  but  a 
mummy. 

The  logic  of  all  this  is  self-evident.  It  puts  the  West- 
minster Confession  beyond  the  possibility  of  amendment 
for  all  time  to  come.  We  have  our  mummy  for  good  and 
for  all,  and  there  seems  to  be  no  way  of  getting  anything 
else  in  its  place.  But  why  try  for  anything  else .?  Why 
change  our  mummy  .^  Why  not  be  satisfied?  It  has  met 
all  our  needs  for  the  past  two  centuries.  True,  we  have 
had  very  little  use  for  it  of  late,  except  as  ''a  witness." 
We  have  not  hawked  it  about  our  streets,  or  carted  it 
through  our  market-places  ;  we  have  not  exposed  its  beau- 
ties from  our  forums,  nor  urged  its  claims  in  our  gates ; 


DOGMATIC    CONFESSIONALISM    VERSUS    REVISION.  3/ 

we  have  kept  it  safe  and  snug  in  its  sarcophagus ;  we  have 
had  our  young  hierophants  make  its  acquaintance  in  the 
secret  places  of  our  theological  catacombs ;  on  solemn 
state  occasions  we  have  made  our  salaams  to  it  and  blown 
a  trump  or  two  in  honor  of  it  ;  and  —  in  short,  it  has  been 
a  Grand  Old  Mummy,  and  what  more  do  we  want  ? 

But  here  we  note  a  curious  anomaly,  which,  it  is  to  be 
feared,  betrays  another  peculiarity  of  a  dogmatic  confes- 
sionalism.  While  history  is  so  desperately  invoked  in 
guarding  the  sacredness  of  our  confessional  mummy,  it  is 
by  no  means  to  be  invoked,  it  seems,  in  deciphering  its 
mysteries.  For  thus  speaks  Dr.  Patton  :  *'Our  interpreta- 
tion of  it  [the  Confession]  must  conform  to  the  funda- 
mental legal  principle  that  requires  us  to  find  our  materials 
for  the  construction  of  a  document  within  the  four  corners 
of  the  document.  A  great  deal  of  most  valuable  histori- 
cal research  becomes  useless  so  far  as  the  question  of  con- 
fessional interpretation  is  concerned  in  the  light  of  this 
principle."  Verily,  here  is  a  marvel !  Leaving  to  the 
smiles  of  the  legal  fraternity  the  naive  and  sweeping 
application  here  made  of  a  "fundamental  legal  principle," 
we  need  not  travel  beyond  the  use  here  made  of  it.  The 
only  use  of  history,  it  seems,  in  respect  to  a  great  historic 
monument  is  to  supply  the  dates,  to  give  us  the  number  of 
centuries  written  into  it,  or  over  it !  Our  mummy  is,  after 
all,  a  mummy  only  on  the  outside !  It  is  to  be  taken  as 
one  of  ourselves.  This  contemporary  of  the  Pharaohs 
must  be  handled  as  a  contemporary  —  say  of  Barnum,  or 
Buffalo  Bill.  He  must  be  arrayed  in  modern  toggery, 
made  "to  wag  the  tongue  of  him  "  in  our  own  to-day  ver- 
nacular ;  and  what  he  says  must  be  parsed  and  analyzed 
as  though  it  were  an  Act  of  Congress  from  the  home  of 
the  setting  sun.  We  must  find  the  secret  of  our  mummy 
within  the  four  corners  of  the  relic  itself,  forsooth  !     And 


38  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

SO  we  are  brought  to  this  interesting  point.  We  cannot 
frame  a  new  creed  —  so  we  are  oracularly  informed  —  be- 
cause we  cannot  write  two  centuries  of  history  into  it ; 
but  in  reading  what  the  seventeenth  century  Sphinx  had 
to  say,  we  must  drop  two  centuries  of  history  out,  and  set 
aside  our  ''most  valuable  historical  research"  into  the 
same,  as  so  much  rubbish,  so  far  as  the  question  of  confes- 
sional interpretation  is  concerned.  This,  sad  to  say,  is  to 
resolve  our  venerable  bicentenarian  Sphinx  into  —  say  a 
bachelor  of  Vassar  or  Wellesley.  You  cannot  write  two 
hundred  years  into  a  new  creed,  and  so  your  new  creed, 
although  "more  compact,  more  logical,  and  in  some  re- 
spects more  satisfactory,"  is  not  to  be  thought  of ;  but 
when  it  comes  to  the  interpretation  of  your  bicentenarian 
you  must  read  the  seventeenth  and  the  eighteenth  cen- 
turies out  of  it,  and  read  —  of  course!  how  can  you  help  it? 
—  the  nineteenth  century  into  it ! 

And  yet  —  will  it  be  believed  ?  —  the  sense  in  which  we 
take  the  Confession  is,  after  all,  "the  historic  sense"! 
Stress  is  laid  by  all  our  Confessionalists  on  the  fact  that 
at  the  Reunion,  the  Confession  was  accepted  in  its  "  his- 
torical, i.e.  to  say,  its  Augustinian  or  Calvinistic  sense." 
Thus  it  is  that  dogmatic  confessionalism  writes  history 
into  the  Confession,  then  reads  history  out  of  it,  and  ends 
by  finding  history  in  it ! 

But  we  are  not  through  with  the  mysteries  of  anti-revis- 
ional  interpretation.  The  citadel  of  the  polemic  against 
revision  is  the  dependence  of  the  integrity  of  our  system 
of  doctrine  on  the  integrity  of  the  Confession.  On  the 
one  side  much  is  made  of  the  logical  unity  and  symmetry 
of  the  Confession.  We  are  reminded  by  the  eulogies  be- 
stowed upon  it  of  the  Deacon's 

"  wonderful  one-hoss  shay 
That  was  built  in  such  a  logical  way 
It  ran  a  hundred  years  to  a  day.'' 


DOGMATIC    CONFESSIONALISM    VERSUS    REVISION.         39 

The  ''logical"  excellence  of  the  Deacon's  masterpiece, 
it  will  be  remembered,  lay  in  the  fact  that  whereas  in 
chaises  generally  "there  is  always  somewhere  a  weakest 
spot "  at  which  "  a  chaise  breaks  down,  but  doesn't  wear 
out,"  in  this  "one-hoss  shay"  there  w^as  no  weakest  spot. 
This,  I  need  not  say,  is  the  logical  excellence  of  the  West- 
minster "masterpiece."  It  "doesn't  wear  out,"  as  the 
centuries  attest,  and  it  won't  break  down. 

"  There  are  traces  of  age  in  the  one-hoss  shay, 
A  general  flavor  of  mild  decay ; 
But  nothing  local,  as  one  may  say.'' 

Hence  local  restorations  are  to  be  avoided  as  endangering 
the  integrity  of  the  venerable  vehicle  that  has  run  so  long 
and  so  well.  "There  is  no  end  to  the  process,"  argues 
Dr.  Shedd.  "  It  is  like  the  letting  out  of  water.  The 
most  cursory  perusal  will  show  that  a  revision  of  the  Con- 
fession on  the  one  subject  of  the  decrees  would  amount  to 
an  entire  recasting  of  the  creeds." 

This  is  one  side  of  the  argument.  The  other  side  is  — 
not  like  unto  it.  According  to  this  side  the  substance  of 
the  Confession  is  quite  independent  of  its  form.  Its  par- 
ticular statements,  the  ipsissima  verba,  are  altogether  sec- 
ondary ;  the  system  of  doctrine  is  the  thing  !  Its  peculiar 
glory,  after  all,  would  seem  to  be  that  it  holds  all  the  "  vari- 
eties" and  "types"  of  "historic,"  or  "generic"  Calvinism 
in  solution,  and  every  Calvinist  is  at  liberty  to  find  "within 
the  four  corners  of  the  document  "  his  own  favorite  sam- 
ple. Dr.  Patton,  e.g.  takes  pains  to  enumerate  and  to  de- 
scribe a  number  of  "varieties"  of  the  Calvinistic  system, 
each  of  which  may  find  its  poijit  d^appiii  in  the  Confession. 
Dr.  Shedd  again  states  three  forms  of  the  doctrine  of 
"  elect  infants  "  ;  and,  reading  a  little  hypothetical  history 
of  the  Westminster  Assembly  into  the  "four-corner"  in- 


40  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

terpretation  of  the  ''document"  adds:  ''Probably  \sic\ 
each  of  these  opinions  had  its  representatives  in  the  As- 
sembly, and  hence  the  indefinite  \sic\  form  of  the  state- 
ment "  (!)  And  again:  ''The  liberty  of  opinion  now 
conceded  by  the  Confession  would  be  ill  exchanged  for  a 
stricter  statement  that  would  admit  of  but  one  meaning"  (!) 
From  which  it  would  appear  that  the  special  beauty  of  the 
unrevised  Confession  is  that  its  statements  are  so  loose  as 
to  admit  of  several  meanings — three  at  least  in  one  impor- 
tant instance.  According  to  Dr.  DeWitt  "  to  change  the 
word  *  elect  '  [before  '  infants  ']  to  '  all '  would  be  to  nar- 
row the  confessional  basis  by  leaving  room  but  for  one 
opinion  instead  of  the  four  opijiions  \sic  /]  ivhich  it  now 
permits  "  (!).  Dr.  DeWitt  is  to  be  congratulated  on  being 
so  far  one  ahead  of  Dr.  Shedd.  What  an  interesting  and 
extraordinary  document  this  logical  definition  of  our  faith 
is  coming  to  be  in  the  hands  of  a  confessionalism  which 
according  to  the  dogmatic  exigency  now  sacrifices  every- 
thing to  history,  and  anon  puts  history  out  of  court  alto- 
gether; which  on  the  one  side  pushes  out  the  horizon  of 
history  into  the  region  of  probabilities,  on  the  other  pinches 
it  down  within  the  four  corners  of  a  dehistorized  historic 
document  —  a  Hamlet  with  the  Hamlet  left  out. 

Now  it  is  certainly  interesting  to  note  the  unison  with 
which  our  confessional  champions  chant  their  solicitude 
for  "liberty  of  interpretation."  It  is  most  encouraging  to 
find  that  not  one  of  them  favors  a  retrogression  to  the  rigid 
ipsissima  vej'ba  theory  of  subscription.  Quite  the  reverse. 
They  are  sincerely,  almost  painfully,  anxious  lest  Revision 
should,  as  Dr.  Shedd  puts  it,  "  abridge  the  liberty  of  inter- 
pretation now  afforded  by  the  Confession."  This  is  surely 
a  great  point  gained  ;  and  with  such  assurances  as  we  now 
have  from  the  dogmatic  side  of  the  house  the  question  of 
"freedom   of   belief   wdthin   the   limits   of  the  Calvinistic 


DOGMATIC    CONFESSIONALISM    VERSUS    REVISION.  4I 

system,"  and  a  recognized  "area  of  tolerated  divergence 
from  the  Confession  of  Faith,"  may  be  regarded  as  settled. 
The  apparent  incongruity  between  this  new-born  zeal  for 
liberty  and  doctrinal  divergence,  and  zeal  for  logical  unity 
and  rigor  and  chronological  persistence  and  immobility, 
however  much  it  may  puzzle  us,  does  not  distress  us.  It 
is  indeed  a  curious  anomaly  that  whereas  on  the  one  side 
the  generic  type  is  so  independent  of  the  ipsissima  verba 
that  Dr.  Patton  is  able  to  boil  down  the  whole  system  of 
doctrine  into  half  a  paragraph  of  concentrated  Calvinism  ; 
on  the  other  side,  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  whole 
church  to  [recast  the  phraseology  where  it  has  been  found 
misleading  or  objectionable,  or  to  omit  that  about  which 
Scripture  is  silent,  is  an  experiment  fraught  with  disastrous 
possibilities.  We  have  a  secret  suspicion  down  in  our 
inmost  souls  that  the  Nemesis  of  the  logical  dilemma  in 
which  our  dogmatic  brethren  are  putting  themselves  will 
one  day  overtake  them  and  scourge  them  with  Erinnyan 
fury  ;  but  that  is  their  concern,  not  ours.  Meantime  we 
welcome  their  aid  and  influence  on  the  side  of  liberal  inter- 
pretation and  a  comprehensive  Calvinism. 

As  for  the  Jeremiads  in  which  our  anti-Revisionists 
indulge  as  they  contemplate  the  disastrous  possibilities 
connected  with  Revision,  not  much  needs  to  be  said. 
This  is  not  argument,  although  our  brethren  sometimes 
seem  to  think  that  it  is.  It  is  simply  a  state  of  mind, 
venting  itself  in  prophecy.  Now  the  fear  of  bogies  is  not 
to  be  reasoned  out  of  anybody ;  nor  is  a  prophecy  to  be 
overthrown  by  a  syllogism.  The  only  available  answer 
to  prophecy  for  the  time  being  is  another  prophecy.  I 
venture,  therefore,  to  predict  that  within  three  years  after 
Revision  is  an  accomplished  fact,  happier  or  more  con- 
tented Calvinists  will  nowhere  be  found  than  our  confes- 
sionalist  brethren  whose  horoscope  is  just  now  so  full  of 


42  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

dark  omens.  Their  timidity  is  not  constitutional  or  per- 
sonal. It  is  the  accident  of  their  position.  Dogmatism 
is  ever  sounding  the  alarm.  It  lives  in  a  house  of  cards, 
and  is  ever  fearful  that  to  shake  one  will  tumble  the  whole 
pack.  Not  seldom  the  fear  is  well  grounded  ;  but  when 
the  tumble  takes  place,  nobody  is  seriously  hurt.  Dog- 
matism crawls  out  of  the  ruin  and  doggedly  takes  up  its 
old  programme  as  outlined  by  Dr.  Shedd,  ''  working  on  the 
very  same  old  bases,  in  the  very  same  straight  line." 

So  far  perhaps  we  need  not  take  this  temper  of  mind 
too  seriously.  There  is  something  so  characteristic  and  so 
naive  about  it  as  to  be  almost  amusing.  Professor  Stowe 
has  somewhere  wittily  compared  the  use  of  a  liturgy  to  the 
use  of  a  go-cart,  which  may  help  the  child  when  he  is 
learning  to  walk,  but  which  would  be  an  odd  appendage 
to  a  full-grown  man  walking  the  streets ;  and  he  goes 
on  to  poke  a  little  sly  fun  at  those  who  may  be  heard  con- 
stantly and  complacently  prating  about  ''our  excellent 
go-cart."  A  confession,  to  be  sure,  is  not  necessarily  a  go- 
cart  ;  but  the  temper  of  mind  which  clings  to  the  Con- 
fession as  it  is,  simply  because  it  has  been  a  useful  accom- 
paniment to  the  early  steps  of  Presbyterianism,  and  because 
our  progress  thus  far  has  been  helped  by  it,  is  in  all  essen- 
tial respects  the  temper  of  mind  which  for  a  similar  reason 
is  always  harping  on  "our  excellent  go-cart." 

But  there  is  a  more  serious  side  to  the  case.  Let  me 
emphasize  the  fact  that  the  opposition  to  Revision  is  con- 
fessedly the  expression  of  a  serene  and  solid  (shall  I  write 
it  stolid?)  satisfaction  with  the  present  status  quo  of  Pres- 
byterianism and  Calvinism.  Why  agitate  for  anything 
better  than  we  have  ?  Why  strive  for  any  higher  or  larger 
success  than  we  have  been  all  along  achieving  }  "  All  the 
past  successes  and  victories  of  Presbyterianism  have  been 
accomplished    under    the  old   Confession.   ...      Is  it   not 


DOGMATIC    CONFESSIONALISM    VERSUS    REVISION.         43 

better  for  the  church  to  work  on  the  very  same  old  bases, 
in  the  very  same  straight  Une  ? "  Is  this,  I  ask,  the  spirit 
which  should  rule  the  church  of  to-day  ?  Is  this  the  view 
we  should  take  of  its  achievements  and  equipments  for 
work  and  conquest?  Glorious  as  may  be  the  record  of 
Westminster  Presbyterianism  for  two  and  a  half  centuries, 
of  "the  theological  learning  and  pulpit  eloquence,  the 
spiritual  life  and  practical  zeal,  the  heroic  endeavor  and 
consecrated  service  of  that  body  of  Christians  in  Great 
Britain  and  America  who  have  believed  in  the  theology  of 
the  Westminster  divines,"  shall  we  allow  it  to  foster  that 
spiritual  complacency,  v/hich  is  the  bane  alike  of  Christians 
and  of  the  church  ?  Shall  we  be  content  that  our  future 
should  be  simply  the  rehearsal  of  our  past  ?  Was  this  the 
spirit  of  Paul,  whom  we  are  so  much  given  to  vaunt  as  our 
spiritual  father  ?  Is  this  forgetting  the  things  which  are 
behind,  and  reaching  forth  unto  those  things  which  are 
before  ?  Is  this  becoming  all  things  unto  all  men  ?  Is 
this  going  in  at  every  open  door?  Is  this  watching  for 
great  doors  and  effectual  ?  Is  this  redeeming  the  oppor- 
tunity, fighting  as  not  beating  the  air,  striking  so  that 
every  blow  will  leave  a  black  eye  behind  it  ?  Is  this  building 
up  the  church  as  the  temple  of  God,  as  the  body  of  Christ, 
as  the  fulness  of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  all  ?  Is  this  exult- 
ing in  God,  who  always  leadeth  us  in  triumph  in  Christ  ? 
If  this  be  Calvinism,  then  what  is  Paulinism  ?  Nay,  is  not 
this  rather  that  nightmare  of  Calvinism,  that  dogmatic 
fatalism,  the  effort  to  get  rid  of  which  has  probably  as 
much  to  do  with  the  Revision  movement  as  any  one  cause  ? 
Let  us  glance  a  moment  at  another  phase  of  this  same 
phlegmatic  temper,  in  which,  sad  to  say,  the  champions  of 
our  confessional  go-cart  show  to  less  advantage  even  than 
the  champions  of  the  liturgical  go-cart.  The  latter  have 
at  least   the  enthusiasm  of  their  convictions.     They  are 


44  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

benevolently  anxious  that  the  merits  of  their  go-cart  should 
be  appreciated,  and  they  look  forward  with  confidence  to 
the  day  when  everybody  will  use  it.  Not  so  with  the 
champions  of  the  confessional  go-cart.  The  unpopularity 
of  their  perambulator  does  not  seem  to  distress  them  par- 
ticularly. Apparently  they  expect  nothing  else.  They 
see  no  good  reason  why,  if  Mohammed  declines  to  come 
to  the  mountain,  the  mountain  should  go  to  Mohammed 
{sic  Dr.  Shedd).  They  have  little  or  no  hope  that  it  will 
ever  be  found  practicable  to  make  a  statement  of  Calvinism 
that  will  commend  it  even  to  evangelical  Christians  who 
thus  far  have  not  accepted  it  {sic  Dr.  DeWitt).  They 
contemplate  without  discomposure  the  alternative  of 
joining  other  communions  for  those  who  do  not  like  our 
doctrines  {sic  Dr.  Patton).  But  are  we  reduced  to  this  "^ 
Is  this  the  outcome  of  two  and  a  half  centuries  of  West- 
minster Confessionalism  }  Is  it  strange  that  some  of  us 
are  getting  out  of  patience  with  this  dogmatic  phlegm  ; 
that  we  are  somewhat  tired  of  a  Confessionalism  which  in 
the  third  century  of  its  existence  is  content  to  be  still  on 
the  defensive,  to  be  still  explaining  and  re-explaining,  ever 
at  the  end  finding  its  explanations  useless,  and  beginning 
all  over  again ;  which  despairs  of  making  any  impression 
on  the  evangelical  Christianity  outside  of  its  own  bounds ; 
and  with  face  to  the  past,  and  back  to  the  future,  drones 
monotonous  paeans  of  self-glorification .?  In  all  this  we 
find  nothing  whereof  to  be  proud,  nothing  to  stir  the  blood, 
nothing  to  inspire  enthusiasm.  We  would  fain  see  a  Con- 
fessionalism of  another  type;  one  that  dared  trust  itself; 
that  put  other  creeds,  if  need  be,  on  the  defensive ;  that 
carried  in  its  own  bosom  the  prophecy  of  victory ;  that 
bore  within  itself  the  promise  and  the  potency  of  develop- 
ment ;  that  could  adapt  itself  more  intelligently  to  the  new 
conditions  of   scientific,  critical  and   religious  thinking  — 


DOGMATIC    CONFESSIONALISM    VERSUS    REVISION.  45 

a  Confessionalism  so  distinctively  and  ringingly  Scriptural 
that  all  Christians  who  accept  and  honor  the  Bible  as  the 
Word  of  God,  would  hear  the  echo  of  its  ring  in  their  own 
inmost  convictions  —  a  Confessionalism  that  would  en- 
courage its  adherents  to  go  forward  with  a  faith  born  of 
the  assurance  that  the  future  is  its  own.  Is  such  a 
Cor  fessionalism  possible?  Why  not  ?  Calvinism.^  W/iy 
not  ? 

Why  Not  ?  I  ask.  Is  Calvinism  to  be  forever  on  the 
defensive?  forever  pleading  with  a  half-apologetic,  half- 
defiant  snarl,  that  we  know  that  our  system  ''is  a  hard 
system,"  that  it  has  "its  hard  side,"  "its  hard  features," 
but  there  are  the  proof-texts  I  and  after  all,  -'  Why  should 
our  doctrines  keep  men  out  of  the  church  ?  They  are  not 
asked  to  accept  them  "  {sic  Dr.  Patton).  So  !  And  what, 
then,  is  the  raison  d'etre  of  our  Presbyterianism  ?  "  To 
be  a  witness-bearing  church"  {sic  Dr.  Patton).  But  to 
bear  witness  to  what  ?  Why,  to  that  same  body  of  doc- 
trines which,  if  we  are  to  accept  the  dogmatic  confession 
respecting  them,  are  irremediably,  hopelessly  hard ;  which 
must  nevertheless  be  unflinchingly  and  unalterably  re- 
tained in  all  their  hardness  ;  but  which,  notwithstanding 
all  this,  only  a  small  percentage  of  the  witness-bearers  of 
the  church  are  asked  or  bound  to  accept !  What  an  ex- 
traordinary position  for  a  great  witness-bearing  church  to 
occupy,  to  be  sure  !  Dr.  Shedd,  indeed,  is  conscious  of 
the  illogical  infelicity  of  the  situation,  and  seeks  relief  in 
the  theory  that  toleration  within  the  church  of  that  against 
which  the  church,  as  a  church,  bears  witness,  is  not 
indorsement.  But  Dr.  Shedd's  theory  does  not  change 
Dr.  Patton's  facts. 

The  question  which  underlies  the  whole  situation,  and 
on  which  the  whole  philosophy  of  Revision  hinges,  is  sim- 
ply this  :  Shall  we  as  a  church  retain,  as  part  of  our  Con- 


46  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

fession,  statements  which  are  admitted  to  be  non-essential 
to  our  system  of  doctrine  ;  which  are  not  supported  by 
the  express  declarations  of  Scripture  ;  which,  if  not  abso- 
lutely rejected  by  the  large  majority  of  our  ministers,  are 
never  preached  or  urged  on  others  ;  which  are  at  the  best 
misunderstood  by  other  evangelical  believers  ;  and  which, 
as  long  as  they  are  retained,  present  our  Calvinism  to  the 
world  as  something  hard,  unsympathetic,  unlovely,  unat- 
tractive, and  so  far  powerless  for  good  ?  The  friends  of 
Revision  are  satisfied  that  the  Calvinism  which  three- 
fourths  of  our  evangelical  brethren  of  other  denominations 
reject  is  not  the  Calvinism  which  we  ourselves  hold.  John 
Calvin's  verdict  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Decree  — 
^^  Decretmn  horribile  fateor''  —  must  be  restricted  to  his 
own  version  of  that  doctrine.  The  ''  hard  side "  of  Cal- 
vinism, of  which  we  hear  so  much,  is  for  the  most  part 
extra-scriptural,  if  not  unscriptural.  Its  gloomy,  repellent 
features  are  largely  the  excrescences  of  a  presumptuous 
logic,  and  of  a  one-sided  dogmatic  exegesis.  The  ''Rep- 
robation "  of  the  Westminster  Confession  is  nowhere 
affirmed  in  Scripture.  The  proof-texts  for  our  "■  hard  doc- 
trines," to  be  sure,  are  taken  from  the  Bible ;  the  mis- 
fortune is  that  they  prove  nothing  of  what  they  are  cited 
to  prove.  The  "ninth  of  Romans"  is  no  doubt  a  mag- 
nificent, ironclad  argument  ;  but  a  false  confessional  exe- 
gesis has  wrested  it  to  uses  —  misuses,  let  me  say  —  of 
which  Paul  never  dreamed. .  Paul  never  cries  out,  "  Decre- 
tiivt  Jiorribile  fateor ! ''  Our  system  of  doctrine,  in  so  far 
as  it  lies  in  his  exposition  of  it,  however  **  rigid,  militant, 
and  menacing"  it  may  be  here  or  there,  is  in  its  grand 
climactic  sweep  unspeakably  gracious,  melting,  and  win- 
ning, strong  indeed  with  the  strength  of  the  purpose  of 
the  eternities  ;  sweet  also  and  tender,  with  the  pathos  of 
the  tears  of   Olivet ;    radiant  with  the  brightness  of  the 


DOGMATIC    CONFESSIONALISM    VERSUS    REVISION.         4/ 

Great  White  Throne,  and  melodious  with  the  interludes 
of  Heaven-born  doxologies. 

Are  the  tone,  the  atmosphere,  the  lights  and  shades,  the 
arrangements,  the  groupings,  the  focusing  of  our  system, 
of  no  significance  ?  Dr.  Patton  would  have  us  think  so. 
"The  fundamental  doctrines  of  Calvinism,"  he  assures  us, 
*'are  not  determined  as  to  their  meaning  by  the  way  in 
which  they  are  systematized.  Separate  dogmas  must  be 
separately  supported  by  Scripture.  How  the  doctrinal 
units  are  manipulated  may  change  the  look  of  the  system, 
but  it  does  not  change  the  doctrines.  We  may  begin  with 
sin,  or  with  predestination,  or  with  the  person  of  Christ. 
We  cannot  change  the  doctrines  by  adopting  one  rather 
than  another  style  of  theological  architecture.  It  is  im- 
portant to  say  this,  because  some  seem  to  think  that  they 
can  keep  their  Calvinism  and  at  the  same  time  get  rid  of 
its  hard  features  by  adopting  a  Christocentric  method  in 
theologizing.  They  are  mistaken."  This  is  sufficiently 
dogmatic,  but  is  it  true  ?  Surely  the  setting  of  a  doctrine 
has  as  much  to  do  with  the  interpretation  of  it  as  its 
phraseology.  The  context  is  often  the  larger  half  of  the 
text.  The  proposition,  "  God  is  All  in  All,"  has  a  very 
different  meaning  in  Spinoza  from  what  it  has  in  Paul. 
Probably  nineteen-twentieths  of  our  systematic  variations 
are  the  outcome  of  doctrinal  manipulations.  The  units 
are  very  nearly  the  same  :  the  difference  lies  in  the  way 
they  are  put  together,  —  in  the  centres,  the  adjustments, 
the  architecture,  and  the  architectonics.  The  unit  tones 
of  a  waltz  of  Strauss  may  be  the  same  with  those  of 
Handel's  Messiah  :  the  method  of  using  them  marks  the 
interval  between  waltzing  and  v/orshipping.  Change  the 
tem/?o  of  Yankee  Doodle,  and  you  have  a  stately  psalm- 
tune.  The  right  adjustment  of  foreground  and  back- 
ground makes  all  the  difference   between  the  artist  and 


48  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

the  bungler.  The  difference  between  the  Ptolemaic  and 
Copernican  astronomies  is  not  in  the  planetary  units,  but 
in  the  centre.  One  architectonic  principle  gives  you  a 
Chinese  pagoda ;  another  gives  you  St.  Peter's  of  Rome. 
The  Calvinism  which  with  "The  Institutes"  puts  the 
Divine  Decree  in  the  foreground  yields  a  different  picture 
from  that  which  with  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  puts  it 
in  the  background.  The  Calvinism  which  seeks  its  archi- 
tectonic principle  in  the  Absolutism  of  the  Divine  Will 
does  not  appeal  to  a  lost  world  like  the  Paulinism  which 
finds  its  constructive  principle  in  the  transcendence  of 
Divine  Grace.  Dr.  Patton  himself  admits  that  a  little 
manipulation  of  the  doctrinal  units,  while  it  does  not 
change  the  doctrines,  may  change  the  look  of  the  system. 
Well,  that  is  what  we  of  the  Revision  want.  Our  objec- 
tion is  not  to  the  system,  nor,  generally  speaking,  to  the 
doctrinal  units,  but  to  the  look  of  the  system. 

Let  me  illustrate  what  I  mean.  Alongside  with  Dr. 
Patton's  representation  of  the  unmitigable  hardness  of 
Calvinism,  let  me  present  another  portraiture  of  it  by  a 
master-hand,  whom  our  brethren  of  the  dogmatic  confes- 
sional school  will  all  agree  to  honor,  the  late  Dr.  Henry  B. 
Smith.  He  is  describing  (Introduction  to  ''  Christian  The- 
ology," pp.  46  seq.)  the  theology  which  it  is  his  own  pur- 
pose to  teach,  and  to  which,  as  one  of  the  great  systems 
of  dogmatic  theology  produced  within  the  Presbyterian 
Church  during  the  last  quarter  of  a  century.  Dr.  Patton 
has  meted  such  high  praise.  Look  back  a  moment  at 
Dr.  Patton's  picture  ;  then  look  at  this  of  Dr.  Smith's  :  — 

**  The  theology  which  is  pre-eminently  needed  in  our  times  is  that 
whose  substance  and  marrow  have  met  the  needs  of  men  in  all  times. 
This  in  its  essential  principles  is  the  old,  time-honored  theology  of  the 
Christian  Church,  with  its  two  foci  of  sin  and  of  redemption,  all  viewed 
as  dependent  on  God.     It  is  based  upon  the  solid  granite  rock  (the 


DOGMATIC    CONFESSIONALISM    VERSUS    REVISION.         49 

only  ir\i&  petra),  and  built  up  of  living  stones,  in  massive  proportions, 
rising  ever  upward,  until  its  aspiring  lines  fade  away  in  the  bosom  of 
the  infinite,  whither  it  leads  us,  that  there  we  may  rest.  That  old  the- 
ology,—  older  than  our  schools,  older  than  the  earth  and  the  stars, — 
coeval  with  the  godhead  ;  always  yet  never  old,  never  yet  ever  new,  — 
it  is  dateless  and  deathless  as  the  divine  decree,  yet  fresh  as  the 
dawning  light  of  a  new  day  in  every  new-born  soul ;  it  has  been  known 
from  the  beginning  to  all  penitent  and  believing  souls  ;  it  is  uttered  in 
every  humble  prayer ;  it  has  been  sung  in  such  melodious  and  raptur- 
ous strains  as  have  nowhere  else  found  voice. 

"  That  old  theology,  the  living  essence  of  our  sacred  Scriptures, 
abiding  substance  of  our  Creed,  the  sense  of  our  confessions  and  the 
consensus  of  our  schools ;  it  has  been  held  and  taught  by  the  most 
piercing  and  soaring  intellects  of  our  Christian  times  —  Athanasius  and 
Augustine,  Anselm  and  Aquinas,  Luther,  Melancthon  and  Calvin,  Tur- 
retine  and  Edwards ;  and  through  them  it  has  taught  and  fashioned  the 
most  vigorous  and  advancing  churches  and  nations  of  modern  times. 

"And  above  all,  when  that  old  theology  is  seen  in  its  most  consum- 
mate and  radiant  form  —  Christologized ;  when  here  all  the  lines  and 
problems  of  thought  and  being  are  seen  to  meet  in  the  Incarnate  Son 
of  God,  our  only  Saviour ;  when  once  this,  its  perfect  fruit  and  full  idea, 
is  revealed  to  any  human  soul,  then  that  soul  knows  itself  also ;  for  it 
has  found  the  master  light  of  all  its  seeing  and  knows  that  here  is  wis- 
dom, here  is  life.'' 

Will  any  one  say  after  this  that  a  Christocentric  Calvin- 
ism is  impossible .?  That  to  Christologize  is  not  to  im- 
prove it }  Will  it  be  no  gain  if  it  catches  a  little  more  of 
this  ring,  of  this  *'  look,"  of  this  consummate  and  radiant 
Christological  form,  and  with  it  a  little  more  of  the  match- 
less winsomeness  of  the  Christ  of  whom  ''  all  our  little 
systems,"  Calvinism  included,  ''are  but  broken  lights"; 
and  who  is  "  more  than  they  "  all  .-* 

I  appeal  to  the  utterances  of  Dr.  Patton  himself,  when  he 
leaves  for  a  moment  his  dogmatism  behind  and  comes  up 
to  the  ''shining  table-lands"  of  Christian  experience.  I 
appeal  from  Dr.  Patton,  the  doctrinaire,  who  says  :  "  Calvin- 
ism may  be  a  hard  system,  but  it  is  Scriptural.  ...     It  has 


50  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

its  hard  features,  I  allow  "  ;  to  Dr.  Patton,  the  devotional- 
ist,  who  goes  on  to  say :  "  But  the  Christian  does  not  find 
it  hard  to  say  that  his  faith  is  the  gift  of  God  ;  that  he  is 
kept  by  the  power  of  God ;  and  that  nothing  shall  separate 
him  from  the  love  of  God.  He  sings  with  Faber,  *  Oh,  gift 
of  gifts;  oh,  grace  of  faith,'  "  etc.  He  sits  at  the  commu- 
nion table  and  sings  with  Watts,  "  Why  was  I  made  to 
hear  His  voice  } "  etc.  It  does  not  occur  to  him,  perhaps, 
that  while  he  says  this  he  is  by  implication  accepting 
the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election  [and  reprobation .?]. 
Precisely  so  !  By  Dr.  Patton's  own  admission,  Calvinism 
can  be  put  in  a  form  which  the  Christian  **  does  not  find  it 
hard  to  accept,"  "  does  not  find  it  hard  to  say,"  or  to  con- 
fess, "does  not  find  it  hard  even  to  sing."  Why,  in  the 
face  of  all  this,  should  we  insist  on  perpetuating  it  in  a 
form  in  which  millions  of  Christians  just  as  evangelical, 
just  as  sincere,  just  as  thoroughly  devoted  to  Scriptural 
truth  and  even  to  Pauline  Christianity  as  we  are,  refuse  to 
have  anything  to  do  with  it  ? 

The  question  which  the  friends  of  Revision  are  asking  is 
this :  Why  should  we  not  conform  the  Calvinism  of  our 
Confession  less  to  the  dogmas  of  the  schools,  and  more  to 
the  prayers  of  our  closets  ?  Can  we  not  make  it  less  of  a 
theorem  and  more  of  a  hymn,  as  were  the  earliest  confes- 
sions of  the  Christian  church,  as  was  indeed  the  one  re- 
corded "  Confession  "  of  the  Author  {archegos)  of  our  faith  } 
(See  Matt.  xi.  25.)  Can  we  not  put  into  it  less  of  our  syl- 
logisms and  enthymemes,  and  more  of  what  we  sing  and 
pray.?  Will  this  hurt  it.?  Will  this  weaken  it.?  Will 
this  impair  its  essential  Calvinism  .?  Keep  in  the  doctrine 
of  an  election  of  grace,  by  all  means.  That  is  Scripture. 
That  is  Paul.  That  is  Peter,  James,  and  John.  That  is 
the  Master.  That  is  Watts  and  Wesley.  That  is  Faber 
and  Toplady.     That   you    can    sing   at   your   communion 


DOGMATIC    CONFESSIONALISM    VERSUS    REVISION.  5 1 

tables.  Keep  out  the  Reprobation  of  Chapter  III.  That 
is  not  Scripture.  That  is  not  Paul.  That  you  cannot, 
you  do  not  sing  —  no  !  not  *'by  implication"  — Dr.  Patton 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

Let  our  brethren  dogmatize  to  their  hearts'  content  in 
their  studies  and  schools,  their  lectures  and  books  ;  why 
dogmatize  so  aggressively,  so  exhaustively,  so  one-sidedly 
in  our  confessions  ?  If  one  has  a  turn,  like  Dr.  Patton, 
for  *' taking  hold  of  the  big  end  of  the  question,"  and 
thinks  that  the  better  way  to  handle  the  matter,  he  is,  of 
course,  welcome  to  hold  that  as  a  pious  opinion  ;  but  why 
shape  the  Confession  that  way  .'*  ''  The  big  end  of  the 
question  "  too  often  proves,  like  Mark  Twain's  "  business 
end  of  a  wasp,"  a  dangerous  end  to  handle.  Those  whose 
theological  cuticle  has  been  thickened  by  rubbing  against 
"the  hard  side  of  Calvinism,"  may  have  nothing  to  fear 
from  the  encounter ;  but  why  should  the  rest  of  us  be 
made  to  suffer } 

The  time  seems  to  have  come  for  the  Presbyterian 
Church  to  take  some  steps  toward  a  Confession  more  vis- 
ibly Christocentric  ;  more  vividly  suffused  with  the  solar 
splendors  of  the  truth  that  God  is  love ;  more  palpably 
pulsant  with  the  heart-throbs  of  the  Divine  Fatherhood ; 
more  eloquent  of  the  world-redemptive  outreachings  of 
the  Cross  ;  more  instinct  with  the  missionary  impulses  of 
a  Pauline  Christianity  ;  more  responsive  to  the  claims  and 
affiliations  of  a  Christian  brotherhood ;  more  in  touch 
with  the  hymns  and  prayers,  the  experiences  and  activi- 
ties of  the  Holy  Church  Universal ;  showing  less  of  con- 
fidence in  the  deductions  of  a  finite  logic  respecting  the 
mysteries  of  God,  and  more  reverence  toward  the  re- 
serves and  silences  of  the  Inspired  Word  ;  a  Confession 
that  can  be  accepted  lovingly  as  well  as  sincerely  ;  that 
can  be  urged  on  others  without  apology  that  fails  to  con- 


52  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

ciliate,  or  explanations  that  fail  to  explain  ;  that  will  in- 
spire enthusiasm  as  well  as  require  loyalty ;  that  will 
attract,  not  repel :  a  Confession  like  that  of  our  Elder 
Brother  [Luke  x.  21  :  "In  that  same  hour  He  rejoiced  in 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  said:  I  thank  Thee  (praise  —  make 
joyous  confession  to  ;  same  verb  in  Rom.  xiv.  11;  xv.  9 ; 
Phil.  ii.  11),  Oh  Father,  Lord  of  Heaven  and  earth,  that 
thou  didst  hide  these  things  from  the  wise  and  under- 
standing, and  didst  reveal  them  unto  babes ;  yea,  Father, 
for  so  it  was  well  pleasing  in  thy  sight  "]  in  which  the  sov- 
ereign good  will  of  the  Father  so  far  from  being  a  spectre 
of  terror  will  shine  forth  as  a  Vision  of  Joy. 


III. 


SOVEREIGNTY  AND  FREEDOM,  BOTH  ESSEN- 
TIAL TO  THE  SYSTEM. 

BY   THE    REV.    ERSKINE    N.    WHITE,  D.D. 

When  a  minister  or  an  elder  subscribes  to  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  "  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures,"  what  does  he  mean  ? 

Does  he  mean  only  that  he  believes  there  is  nothing  in 
that  Confession  which  is  not  in  the  system  of  doctrine  ? 
Or  does  he  also  mean  that  he  believes  that  whatever  is 
essential  to  the  system  of  doctrine  zs  included  ?  If,  as 
seems  to  be  self-evident,  both  these  statements  are  included 
in  his  subscription,  then  manifestly  in  opposing  the  revision 
of  the  standards,  it  is  not  enough  to  prove,  even  were  it  sus- 
ceptible of  proof,  that  every  statement  of  the  Confession 
"is  either  expressly  taught  in  Scripture  or  by  good  and 
necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from  Scripture." 

If  there  is  any  doctrine  essential  to  the  system  which 
is  either  entirely  omitted  in  the  Confession  or  so  obscured 
that  it  is  practically  untaught,  then  in  order  that  the  re- 
quired subscription  may  be  truthfully  made,  there  is  need 
of  revision,  no  matter  how  successfully  the  statements  that 
are  included  in  the  Confession  may  be  defended. 

What,  then,  are  the  facts  ? 

There  are  two  doctrines  that  are  universally  admitted 
to  be  essential,  if  not  to  our  Christian  faith,  at  least  to  that 

S3 


54  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

form  of  it  which  is  termed  the  Calvinistic  system.  Of  this 
latter,  indeed,  they  may  be  said  to  be  the  cardinal  doctrines 
which  give  it  its  distinctive  position. 

These  doctrines  are  (i)  the  absohite  sovereignty  of  God 
and  (2)  \\iQ,  freedom  and  resp07isibility  of  man.  If  the  latter 
without  the  former  means  Arminianism,  the  former  with- 
out the  latter  vi\^2sv^  fatalism. 

That  the  latter  is  just  as  essential  as  the  former  to  Cal- 
vinism was  emphasized  again  and  again  (most  noticeably 
by  Dr.  W.  M.  Paxton  of  Princeton)  during  the  late  debate 
in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  Moreover,  it  has  been 
always  assumed  not  only  that  both  doctrines  are  essential 
to  the  completeness  of  the  system,  but  also  that  from  the 
antithesis  they  present,  it  has  drawn  its  grand  power  upon 
the  hearts  of  men.  One  of  the  prominent  journals  of  our 
church  opposing  revision  emphatically  says,  "  By  exalting 
God's  sovereignty,  and  at  the  same  time  equally  insisting 
upon  man's  free  agency,  there  has  been  a  combination 
of  the  divine  and  the  human  in  aggressive  movement, 
and  the  presentation  of  the  purest  and  warmest  gospel 
messages  along  with  the  fullest  theological  teaching  and 
exposition." 

It  has  been  often  affirmed,  and  it  is  generally  admitted, 
that  these  two  doctrines  are  to  human  logic  irreconcilable, 
and  yet  despite  such  affirmation  or  admission  they  are 
none  the  less  accepted.  God  is  sovereign  and  '*  from  all 
eternity  did  by  the  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  His  own 
will  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to 
pass,"  yet  so  as  thereby  no  "violence  is  offered  to  the  will 
of  the  creatures."  The  mystery  seems  insoluble  ;  yet  in 
some  way,  uncomprehended  by  us,  these  two  subHme 
truths  do  not  conflict :  the  one  enfolds  and  upholds  the 
other. 

I.   It  is  certainly  then  pertinent  to  ask:  In  what  relative 


SOVEREIGNTY  AND  FREEDOM.  55 

proportion  should  these  two  fundamental  doctrines  appear 
in  a  Confession  of  Faith  ? 

1.  To  say  the  least,  both  must  be  in  some  measure 
included  and  unmistakably  affirmed. 

2.  Logical  inferences  must  not  be  drawn  from  the  one 
to  the  disparagement  and  minimizing  of  the  other. 

As  Prof.  Henry  B.  Smith,  who  knew  so  well  how  ''to 
handle  with  special  prudence  and  care"  "the  doctrine  of 
the  high  mystery  of  predestination,"  was  accustomed  to 
say,  "  Neither  doctrine  must  be  held  so  as  to  cut  the  nerve 
of  the  other." 

3.  They  must  be  set  forth  in  such  proportion  as  befits 
their  practical  importance  in  the  great  scheme  of  grace 
and  in  its  presentation  to  the  consciences  of  dying  men. 

4.  They  must  be  exhibited  in  the  relation  to  one  another 
in  which  they  are  manifested  in  the  Word  of  God. 

II.  To  form  a  just  idea  of  the  result,  were  these  funda- 
mental truths  manifested  in  such  just  proportion,  we  must 
consider  what  is  their  relative  importance  in  the  system  of 
doctrine  which  we  accept. 

There  is  a  sense  in  which  it  should  be  affirmed  most 
emphatically  that  they  are  of  equal  importance.  Both  are 
fundamental,  and  the  omission  of  either  opens  the  way  to 
doubt  and  misunderstanding,  if  not  to  fatal  error.  But 
there  is  another  sense  in  which  it  may  be  truly  said  that 
the  doctrine  of  man's  freedom  involving,  as  it  does,  his 
moral  responsibility,  his  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the 
gracious  offer  of  salvation  and  his  own  accountability  if 
his  soul  shall  be  lost,  is  practically  of  far  greater  impor- 
tance than  his  acceptance  of  any  philosophy,  however  sub- 
lime, in  regard  to  the  eternal  decree  of  God.  The  latter 
concerns  God  and  His  hidden  counsels  for  which  man  is 
in  no  degree  responsible  :  the  former  involves  his  eternal 
destiny., 


56  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

In  proof  of  this  relative  importance  of  these  doctrines, 
consider  the  following  facts  :  — 

I.    How  do  we  treat  the  parallel  facts  in  our  daily  lives  ? 

In  the  late  debate  in  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  Dr. 
W.  M.  Paxton  was  at  much  pains  to  show  that  the  doctrine 
of  election  and  pretention  ran  through  all  the  events  of 
life  and  was  plainly  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  He  cited 
as  clear  illustrations  the  statements  :  "  Many  widows  were 
in  Israel  in  the  days  of  Elias,  but  unto  none  of  them  was 
Elias  sent  save  unto  Sarepta,  a  city  of  Sidon,  unto  a  woman 
that  was  a  widow."  "Many  lepers  were  in  Israel  in  the 
time  of  Eliseus  the  prophet  ;  and  none  of  them  was 
cleansed  saving  Naaman  the  Syrian." 

Here,  he  said,  election  and  pretention  were  plainly 
taught.  Dr.  Paxton  was  undoubtedly  right.  Many  mis- 
understandings would  vanish  if  it  were  realized  that  these 
same  mysteries  encompass  our  daily  lives,  and  yet  give  us 
no  corresponding  distress. 

Sovereign  election  bears  just  the  same  relation  to  our 
spiritual  destiny  —  no  more,  no  less — that  God's  deter- 
mination of  every  act  of  our  temporal  lives  bears  to  our 
daily  choices  and  acts.  Yet  we  consider  it  essential  to 
successful  activity  and  even  to  morality  that  we  never  for 
a  moment  allow  the  thought  of  God's  overruling  provi- 
dence, precious  as  it  is,  to  diminish  our  sense  of  personal 
responsibility. 

For  example,  it  has  been  very  aptly  said  that  the  num- 
ber of  Presbyteries  that  will  vote  for  Revision  is  already 
**  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed  ;  and  their  num- 
ber is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  in- 
creased or  diminished."  Yet  in  the  many  debates  upon 
this  question,  has  any  one  thought  it  of  importance  to 
emphasize  that  fact  ?  On  the  contrary,  ministers  and 
elders  are  well  aware  of  their  own  freedom  and  responsi- 


SOVEREIGNTY  AND  FREEDOM.  5/ 

bility  in  the  decision,  and  are  expending  much  time  and 
wisdom  in  their  efforts  to  effect  a  result  that  in  the  purpose 
of  God  is  already  absolutely  determined. 

In  like  manner  in  the  spiritual  realm,  the  doctrine  of 
man's  freedom  and  responsibility  is  practically  of  far  more 
importance  than  his  convictions  of  the  implications  involved 
in  the  doctrine  of  God's  sovereignty. 

2.  Our  Methodist  brethren  have  very  decided  convic- 
tions in  regard  to  the  freedom  and  responsibility  of  man, 
and,  as  we  think,  very  inadequate  views  of  the  scope  of 
God's  sovereignty,  and  yet  God  has  blessed  their  work 
beyond  that  of  almost  any  other  branch  of  His  church. 
Does  this  carry  no  lesson  in  regard  to  the  proportion  that 
the  statements  of  these  doctrines  should  assume  ? 

3.  In  what  proportions  do  we  find  these  two  cardinal 
doctrines  of  the  Calvinistic  system  stated  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  ? 

Plainly  as  God's  good  sovereignty  is  there  taught,  does 
any  one  doubt  that  far  more  frequently  we  find  the  expres- 
sion of  God's  loving  offer  of  salvation  to  all  men  ;  of  man's 
opportunity  of  life  as  depending  upon  his  own  choice,  and 
of  man's  sole  responsibility  if  at  last  he  is  found  among 
the  lost  ? 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  in  order  that  these  two  doctrines 
of  the  Word  of  God  and  of  the  Calvinistic  system  be  pre- 
sented in  their  due  proportion  in  the  Confession,  the  state- 
ment of  the  freedom  and  the  responsibility  of  man  should 
have  at  least  equal  prominence  and  emphasis  with  the  state- 
ment of  the  divine  sovereignty. 

III.  We  turn  now  to  the  symbol  to  see  if  this  is  a  fact, 
not  assuming  that  if  it  be  so,  revision  is  uncalled  for,  — for 
many  other  grave  considerations  may  be  urged,  —  but  forced 
to  admit  that  if  it  be  not  so,  the  need  of  revision  is  mani- 
fest and  the  reasons  decisive. 


58  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

What  are  the  confessional  statements  in  regard  to  these 
fundamental  truths  ? 

I.  In  regard  to  the  grand  truth  of  the  sovereignty  of 
God  and  its  necessary  sequence,  sovereign  election,  there 
can  be  no  doubt.  It  is  plainly  and  unmistakably  set  forth. 
Indeed,  it  is  pressed  home  upon  the  reader  upon  almost  every 
page,  and  colors  the  statement  of  every  cognate  doctrine. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  under 
the  pressure  of  human  logic  it  has  been  carried  out  to  ex- 
treme inferences  that  "cut  the  nerve"  of  the  equally 
important  truth  that  presents  the  other  half  of  the  Calvin- 
istic  system.  However  plainly  and  unmistakably  the  doc- 
trine of  man's  freedom  were  elsewhere  presented,  it  would 
still  be  a  just  ground  of  criticism,  if,  in  dealing  with  mys- 
teries that  confessedly  transcend  our  comprehension,  lan- 
guage were  used  without  express  Scripture  warrant,  that 
intensified  the  already  existing  mystery  and  emphasized 
the  apparent  contradiction. 

For  example,  it  may  be  true,  and  from  human  logic  it 
would  seem  to  follow,  that  the  angels  and  men  "  foreor- 
dained to  everlasting  death"  are  ''particularly  and  un- 
changeably designed  and  their  number  so  certain  and 
definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  diminished," 
but  the  statement  in  that  bald  form  certainly  "  cuts  the 
nerve  "  of  man's  responsibility,  and  it  would  be  very  diffi- 
cult to  find  any  text  that  in  terms  makes  such  assertion. 

Dr.  McCosh  well  says  :  — 

**  To  carry  up  human  theories  into  high  heavenly  truths  is  like  con- 
structing walls  and  planning  railways  in  the  Empyrean  above  the  clouds. 
I  believe  most  devoutly  in  the  good  sovereignty  of  God,  but  I  refuse  to 
let  human  logic  draw  conclusions  which  would  strip  man  of  his  freedom 
and  thereby  free  him  from  responsibility." 

But  this  is  not  all.  Not  only  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  sovereignty  so  presented  as   to  seem  "  to  cut  the 


SOVEREIGNTY  AND  FREEDOM.  59 

nerve"  of  the  doctrine  of  man's  freedom,  but  we  are  forced 
to  admit, 

2.  The  latter  fundamental  truth  is  so  obscured  that  it 
is  doubtful  whether  it  is  expressed  at  all.  Aside  from  the 
one  brief  and  vague  reservation  in  the  first  section  of  the 
third  chapter  (**  nor  is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the 
creatures  "),  there  cannot  be  found  from  beginning  to  end 
a  single  sentence  that  impresses  upon  the  soul  the  truth 
that  it  may  be  saved  if  it  will,  and  that  if  it  is  lost,  the 
responsibility  is  its  own  and  not  God's. 

On  the  contrary,  the  chain  of  logic  that  leads  to  the 
opposite  conclusion  is  irresistible  and  appalling. 

Its  affirmations  are  clear  and  distinct :  — 

"  By  the  decree  of  God  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory  some  men 
and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  othe?'s foreordained 
to  everlasting  death.''''  "  These  angels  and  men  thus  predestinated  and 
foreordained  are  particularly  and  unchangeably  designed,  and  their 
number  is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  ca?mot  be  increased  or 
diminished''''  (iii.  3,  4). 

' '  Wherefore  they  who  are  elected  are  redeemed  by  Christ."  ' '  Neither 
are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually  called,  justified,  adopted, 
sanctified  and  saved,  but  the  elect  only"  (iii.  6). 

'*  They  (our  first  parents)  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of 
this  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature 
conveyed  to  all  their  posterity  descending  from  them  by  ordinary 
generation"  (vi.  3). 

By  this  original  corruption  "  we  are  iitterly  indisposed, 
disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good." 

"  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  ability  of 
will  to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation,  so  as  a  natural  man 
being  altogether  averse  from  that  good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able  by 
his  own  strength  to  convert  himself  or  to  prepare  himself  '  thereunto.' " 
*'  All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life  ajid  those  only  he  is 
pleased  effectually  to  call."  "This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and 
special  grace  alone,  not  from  anything  foreseen  in  man,  who  is  al- 
together passive  therein"  (ix.  3;  x.  r). 


6o  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

••  The  grace  of  faith  whereby  the  elect  are  enabled  to  believe  is  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ"  (xiv.  i). 

"  Works  done  by  unregenerate  men,  although  for  the  matter  of  them 
they  may  be  things  which  God  commands,  yet  because  they  proceed  not 
from  a  heart  purified  by  faith  are  therefore  sinful  and  cannot  please  God  " 
(xvi.  7). 

Such  are  the  statements,  and  they  are  not  here  quoted 
for  the  purpose  of  criticism.  There  is  a  high  philosophical 
sense  in  which  they  may  be  admitted  to  be  true,  and  in 
regard  to  the  most  of  them  there  are  passages  of  Scripture 
that  may  be  quoted  in  their  support. 

But  where  is  there  any  statement  of  the  freedom  of 
every  man  to  accept  or  reject  Christ  freely  offered  in  the 
Gospel  ?  Where  is  set  forth  that  fundamental  truth  of  the 
Calvinistic  system,  that  man,  and  man  alone,  is  to  be 
blamed  if  he  is  lost  ? 

Thus  it  appears  that  so  far  from  the  two  fundamental 
truths  of  the  distinctively  Calvinistic  system  being  pre- 
sented in  our  Confession  in  due  proportion,  the  one  that 
is  clearly  of  the  greater  practical  importance,  if  expressed 
at  all,  is  so  obscured  and  minimized  that  it  no  longer 
serves  to  preserve  the  true  balance  of  the  system  of  which 
it  forms  a  part. 

As  has  been  already  said,  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute 
sovereignty  of  God  divorced  from  that  of  the  freedom  and 
responsibility  of  man  logically  leads  to  fatalism  ;  and  it  is 
not  strange  in  view  of  this  obscuration,  that  the  charge  of 
fatalism,  however  unjust,  has  at  times  been  brought  against 
our  venerable  Confession  by  its  enemies ;  while,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  present  writer,  it  is  this  want  of  balance 
resulting  from  so  noticeable  an  omission,  more  than  its 
positive  statements,  that  causes  among  its  friends  the 
present  unrest  and  dissatisfaction. 

That  this  cardinal  defect  in  tlie  Confession  has  been  a 


SOVEREIGNTY  AND  FREEDOM.  6l 

source  of  deep  distress  to  many  a  troubled  soul  who  has 
accepted  its  teachings  as  those  of  the  Word  of  God  cannot 
be  denied  ;  and  it  may  well  be  questioned  whether  it  would 
not  have  gravely  hindered  the  progress  of  the  church  had 
the  Confession  been  as  prominently  presented  and  as 
universally  studied  as  the  Shorter  Catechism.  In  view  of 
the  prominence  into  which  the  Confession  has  now  been 
brought  such  immunity  can  hardly  be  expected  in  the 
future. 

Thus  even  those  who  like  the  present  writer  are  not 
prepared  to  contradict  the  confessional  statements,  nor  to 
deny  their  logical  coherence,  may  still  insist  that  if  in 
accepting  the  symbol  *'as  containing  the  system  of  doc- 
trine," we  necessarily  mean  that  we  beheve  that  nothing 
essential  to  that  system  is  omitted,  then  even  though  it 
can  be  proved  that  its  present  statements  ''  by  good  and 
necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from  Scripture," 
it  is  still  necessary,  in  view  of  the  required  subscription, 
that  revision  shall  be  undertaken. 


IV, 


PAUL'S    ARGUMENT    IN    ROMANS    IX.,    X., 
AND    XI. 

BY   PROF.    MARVIN    R.    VINCENT,    D.D. 

These  chapters,  as  they  are  the  most  difficult  of  Paul's 
writings,  have  been  most  misunderstood  and  misapplied. 
Their  most  dangerous  perversion  is  that  w^hich  draws  from 
them  the  doctrine  of  God's  arbitrary  predestination  of 
individuals  to  eternal  life  or  eternal  perdition. 

It  can  be  shown  that  such  is  not  the  intent  of  these 
chapters.  They  do  not  discuss  the  -doctrine  of  individual 
election  and  reprobation  with  reference  to  eternal  destiny. 
The  treatment  of  this  question  is  subordinate  to  a  differ- 
ent purpose,  and  is  not,  as  it  is  not  intended  to  be,  ex- 
haustive. 

At  the  time  when  the  epistle  was  written  this  question 
was  not  agitating  the  church  at  large  nor  the  Roman 
Church  in  particular.  Had  this  been  the  case,  we  may  be 
sure,  from  the  analogy  of  other  epistles  of  Paul,  that  he 
would  have  treated  it  specifically,  as  he  does  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  faith  in  this  epistle,  and  the  questions  of 
idol-meats  and  the  resurrection  in  first  Corinthians. 

Such  a  discussion  would  not  have  been  germane  to  the 
design  of  this  epistle,  which  was  to  unfold  the  Christian 
doctrine  of   justification   by  faith,   as   against   the   Jewish 
doctrine  of  justification  by  works. 
63 


Paul's  argument.  63 

The  great  question  which  was  then  agitating  the  church 
was  the  relation  of  Judaism  to  Christianity.  Paul  declared 
that  Christianity  had  superseded  Judaism.  The  Jew  main- 
tained, either,  that  the  Messiah  had  not  come  in  the  per- 
son of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  Christianity  was  therefore 
an  imposture ;  or  that,  admitting  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah, 
He  had  come  to  maintain  the  law  and  the  institutions 
of  Judaism  :  that,  therefore,  entrance  into  the  Messianic 
kingdom  was  possible  only  through  the  gate  of  Judaism  ; 
and  that  the  true  Christian  must  remain  constant  to  all 
the  ordinances  and  commandments  of  the  law  of  Moses. 

According  to  the  Jewish  idea,  all  Gentiles  were  ex- 
cluded from  the  kingdom  of  God  unless  they  should  enter 
it  as  Jewish  proselytes.  Paul  himself,  before  his  convers- 
ion, had  undertaken  to  stamp  out  Christianity  as  heresy, 
verily  thinking  that  he  "ought  to  do  many  things  con- 
trary to  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  "  (Acts  xxvi.  9). 
Hence  the  Jew  ''compassed  sea  and  land  to  make  one 
proselyte"  (Matt,  xxiii.  15).  Every  Gentile  who  should 
resist  the  conquest  of  the  world  by  Israel  would  be  de- 
stroyed by  Messiah.  The  Jew  had  no  doubts  as  to  the 
absoluteness  of  the  divine  sovereignty,  since  its  fancied 
application  flattered  his  self-complacency  and  national 
pride.  All  Jews  were  elect,  and  all  others  were  reprobate. 
Paul's  proclamation  of  Messianic  privilege  to  the  Gentiles 
did,  perhaps,  quite  as  much  to  evoke  Jewish  hatred  against 
himself,  as  his  allegiance  to  the  Jesus  whom  the  Jews  had 
crucified  as  a  malefactor. 

The  discussion  in  these  three  chapters  fits  perfectly 
into  this  question.  It  is  aimed  at  the  Jews'  national  and 
religious  conceit.  It  is  designed  ^o  show  them  that,  not- 
withstanding their  claim  to  be  God's  elect  people,  the 
great  mass  of  their  nation  has  been  justly  rejected  by 
God  ;  and  further,  that  God's  elective  purpose  includes  the 


64  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

Gentiles.  Hence,  while  maintaining  the  truth  of  divine 
sovereignty  in  the  strongest  and  most  positive  manner,  it 
treats  it  on  a  grander  scale,  and  brings  it  to  bear  against 
the  very  elect  themselves. 

WHAT    IS    THE    PLACE    OF    THESE     CHAPTERS    IN    THE    ORDER 
OF    THE    ARGUMENT? 

Early  in  the  discussion,  Paul  had  asserted  that  the  Mes- 
sianic salvation  had  been  decreed  to  the  Jew  first  i^.  16; 
ii.  10:  comp.  John  i.  11).  In  the  face  of  this  stood  the 
fact  that  the  Jewish  people  generally  had  rejected  the 
offer  of  God  in  Christ.  Paul  himself,  after  offering  the 
Gospe>  to  the  Jews  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  had  said  :  '*  It 
was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God  should  fij^st  have  been 
spoken  to  you ;  but  seeing  ye  put  it  from  you,  and  judge 
yourselves  unworthy  of  everlasting  life,  lo,  we  turn  to  the 
Gentiles  "  (Acts  xiii.  46 :  comp.  Acts  xviii.  6).  The  Jew 
had  fallen  under  the  judgment  of  God  (Rom.  ii.  i,  2). 
Resting  in  the  law,  making  his  boast  of  God,  claiming  to 
be  a  guide  of  the  blind,  a  light  of  them  which  are  in  dark- 
ness, an  instructor  of  the  foolish,  and  having  the  form  of 
knowledge  and  of  the  truth  in  the  law,  he  had  made  him- 
self a  scandal  in  the  eyes  of  the  Gentiles  by  his  notorious 
depravity,  and  had  proved  himself  to  be  not  a  Jew,  since 
his  circumcision  was  not  of  the  heart  (Rom.  ii.  17-29). 

Notwithstanding  these  facts,  the  Jew  claimed  that  be- 
cause lie  was  a  Jew  God  could  not  reject  him  consistently 
with  His  own  election  and  covenant  promise.  If  the  Gos- 
pel were  true,  and  Jesus  really  the  Messiah,  the  promises 
made  to  the  Jewish  people,  who  reject  the  Messiah,  were 
nullified.  Or,  if  the  election  of  God  held,  Israel  was  and 
forever  remained  the  people  of  God,  in  which  case  the 
Gospel  was  false,  and  Jesus  an  impostor.  "Thus  the 
dilemma  seemed  to  be  :  either  to  affirm  God's  faithfulness 


Paul's  argument.  65 

to  His  own  election  and  deny  the  Gospel,  or  to  affirm  the 
Gospel,  but  give  the  lie  to  the  divine  election  and  faithful- 
ness." —  Godet. 

Paul  must  face  this  problem.  It  lies  in  the  straight 
line  of  his  argument.  Hints  of  it  have  already  appeared 
in  chs.  iii.  i  seq.  ;  iv.  i.  The  discussion  necessarily  in- 
volves the  truth  of  the  divine  sovereignty  and  election. 

In  studying  Paul's  treatment  of  this  question,  mistake 
and  misconstruction  are  easy,  because  the  truths  of  divine 
sovereignty  and  elective  freedom  require  to  be  presented 
in  their  most  absolute  aspect  as  against  man's  right  to 
dictate  to  God.  The  parallel  facts  of  man's  free  agency 
and  consequent  responsibility,  which  are  equally  patent  in 
these  chapters,  are,  at  certain  points,  thrown  into  the 
shade ;  so  that,  if  the  attention  is  fastened  upon  particular 
passages  or  groups  of  passages,  the  result  will  be  a  one- 
sided and  untruthful  conception  of  the  divine  economy, 
which  may  easily  run  into  a  challenge  of  God's  justice  and 
benevolence.  The  assertion  God  must  act  according  to  my 
constriictioit  of  His  promise  and  decree^  can  be  met  only  by 
the  bare,  hard,  crushing  counter-statement  God  is  siip7'eme 
and  does  as  He  will,  and  has  the  right  to  do  as  He  zuill. 
This  assertion,  we  repeat,  does  not  exclude  the  element  of 
individual  freedom  ;  it  does  not  imply  that  God  will  do  vio- 
lence to  it ;  it  is  consistent  with  the  assumption  of  the 
most  impartial  justice,  the  most  expansive  benevolence, 
the  tenderest  mercy,  the  purest  love  on  God's  part.  The 
argument  merely  sets  these  elements  aside  for  the  time 
being  and  for  a  purpose,  only  to  emphasize  them  at  a  later 
stage.     As  Meyer  aptly  says  :  — 

"As  often  as  we  treat  only  07ie  of  the  two  truths  :  '  God  is  absolutely 
free  and  all-efficient,'  and  '  Man  has  moral  freedom,  and  is,  in  virtue  of 
his  proper  self-determination  and  responsibility  as  a  free  agent,  the 
author  of  his  salvation  or  perdition,'  and  carry  it  out  in  a  consistent 


66  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

theory,  and  therefore  in  a  one-sided  method,  we  are  compelled  to 
speak  in  such  a  manner  ///«/  f/ie  other  truth  appears  to  be  annulled. 
Only  appears,  however ;  for,  in  fact,  all  that  takes  place  in  this  case  is 
a  temporary  and  conscious  withdrawi7ig  of  attention  from  the  other. 
In  the  present  instance  Paul  found  himself  in  this  case,  and  he  expresses 
himself  according  to  this  mode  of  view,  not  merely  in  a  passing  refer- 
ence, but  in  the  whole  reasoning  of  ix.  6-29.  In  opposition  to  the 
Jewish  conceit  of  descent  and  works,  he  desired  to  establish  the  free 
and  absolute  sovereign  power  of  the  divine  will  and  action,  and  that  the 
more  decisively  and  exclusively,  the  less  he  would  leave  any  ground 
for  the  arrogant  illusion  of  the  Jews  that  God  must  be  gracious  to 
them.  The  apostle  has  here  wholly  taken  his  position  on  the  absolute 
standpoint  of  the  theory  of  pure  dependence  upon  God,  and  that  with 
all  the  boldness  of  clear  consistency  ;  but  only  until  he  has  done  justice 
to  the  polemical  object  which  he  has  in  view.  He  then  returns  (vv.  30 
seqq.)  from  that  abstraction  to  the  human  moral  standpoint  of  practice, 
so  that  he  allows  the  claims  of  both  modes  of  consideration  to  stand 
side  by  side,  just  as  they  exist  side  by  side  within  the  limits  of  human 
thought.  The  contemplation  —  which  lies  beyond  these  limits  —  of  the 
metaphysical  relation  of  essential  interdependence  between  the  two  — 
namely,  objectively  divine  and  subjectively  human,  freedom  and  activity 
of  will — necessarily  remained  outside  and  beyond  his  sphere  of  view  ; 
as  he  would  have  had  no  occasion  at  all  in  this  place  to  enter  upon 
this  problem,  seeing  that  it  was  incumbent  upon  him  to  crush  the 
Jewish  pretensions  with  the  one  side  only  of  it  —  the  absoluteness  of 
God." 

That  the  factor  of  human  freedom  has  full  scope  in  the 
divine  economy  is  too  obvious  to  require  proof.  It  appears 
in  numerous  utterances  of  Paul  himself,  and  in  the  entire 
drift  of  Scripture,  where  man's  power  of  moral  choice  is 
both  asserted,  assumed,  and  appealed  to  ;  where  the  punish- 
ment of  unbelief  and  disobedience  is  clearly  shown  to  be 
due  to  man's  own  obstinacy  and  perverseness.  Were  this 
not  the  case,  if  human  destiny  were  absolutely  and  un- 
changeably fixed  by  an  arbitrary  decree,  the  exhortations 
to  carry  out  our  own  salvation,  to  obedience  and  persever- 
ance in  right-doing,  the  cautions  against  moral  lapse,  the 
plain    suggestions   of  the   possibility   of   forfeiting  divine 


Paul's  argument.  67 

blessings,  the  use  of  the  divine  promises  themselves  as 
appeals  to  repentance  and  holiness,  the  recognitions  of  the 
possibility  of  moral  transformation,  would  assert  them- 
selves as  a  stupendous  farce,  a  colossal  and  cruel  satire. 

It  must  suffice  for  us  that  these  two  factors  of  divine 
sovereignty  and  human  freedom  are  both  alike  distinctly 
recognized  in  Scripture.  Their  interplay  and  mutual  ad- 
justment in  the  divine  administration  carry  us  out  of  our 
depth.  That  matter  must  be  left  with  God,  and  faced  by 
man  With,  faith,  not  with  knowledge.  That  there  is  a  divine 
election  —  the  act  of  God's  holy  will  in  selecting  His  own 
methods,  instruments,  and  times  for  carrying  out  His  own 
purposes  —  is  a  fact  of  history  and  of  daily  observation.  It 
appears  in  the  different  natural  endowments  of  men ;  in 
the  distribution  of  those  natural  advantages  which  minister 
to  the  strength  or  weakness  of  nations ;  in  the  inferiority 
of  the  Ethiopian  to  the  Caucasian ;  in  the  intellectual 
superiority  of  a  Kant  or  a  Descartes  to  a  Chinese  coolie. 

"It  is  true,  and  no  argument  can  gainsay  it,  that  men  are  placed  in 
the  world  unequally  favored,  both  in  inward  disposition  and  outward 
circumstances.  Some  children  are  born  with  temperaments  which 
make  a  life  of  innocence  and  purity  natural  and  easy  to  them ;  others 
are  born  with  violent  passions,  or  even  with  distinct  tendencies  to  evil, 
inherited  from  their  ancestors  and  seemingly  unconquerable ;  some 
are  constitutionally  brave,  others  are  constitutionally  cowards ;  some 
are  born  in  religious  families  and  are  carefully  educated  and  watched 
over ;  others  draw  their  first  breath  in  an  atmosphere  of  crime,  and 
cease  to  inhale  it  only  when  they  pass  into  their  graves.  Only  a  fourth 
part  of  mankind  are  born  Christians.  The  remainder  never  hear  the 
name  of  Christ  except  as  a  reproach."  —  Froude,  Calvifiism. 

Such  election  must  needs  be  arbitrary ;  not  as  not  hav- 
ing good  and  sufficient  reasons  behind  it,  but  as  impelled 
by  such  reasons  as  are  either  beyond  human  apprehension 
or  are  withheld  from  it  in  God's  good  pleasure.  All  that 
we  can  say  in  our  ignorance  of  these  reasons  is  :   God  did 


6S  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

t/izis  because  it  pleased  Him.  Certain  it  is  that,  could  we 
penetrate  to  these  reasons,  we  should  come,  in  every  case, 
at  last,  upon  perfect  wisdom  and  perfect  love  working  out 
along  hidden  lines  to  such  results  as  will  fill  heaven  with 
adoring  joy  and  wonder. 

THE  COURSE  OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 

This  we  shall  follow  in  detail  through  ch.  ix.,  and  in 
general  outlines  through  chs.  x.  and  xi. 

(vv.  1-3.)  I  have  great  sorrow  of  heart  for  my  Jewish 
kinsmen  because  of  their  spiritual  condition  arising  from 
their  rejection  of  Jesus,  and  their  consequent  exclusion 
from  the  blessings  of  Messiah's  Kingdom. 

(4,  5.)  This  condition  is  the  more  lamentable  because 
of  their  original  privileges  involved  in  God's  election  of 
them  to  be  His  chosen  people- — adoption,  visible  mani- 
festations of  God,  covenants,  a  divine  legislation,  a  divinely 
arranged  order  of  worship,  Messianic  promises,  descent 
from  the  revered  fathers,  selection  as  the  race  from  whom 
the  Christ  was  to  spring  (comp.  Isa.  xlv.  3,  4). 

(6.)  There  is,  however,  no  inconsistency  between  their 
possession  of  these  original  privileges  and  their  present 
exclusion.  The  case  does  not  stand  so  as  that  God's  word 
has  failed  of  fulfilment.  Those  who  make  this  charge, 
assuming  that  they  are  entitled  to  acceptance  with  God  on 
the  mere  ground  of  descent,  are  to  remember  the  general 
principle  that  Messianic  blessing  is  not  conditioned  by 
mere  descent ;  that  not  all  who  are  physically  descended 
from  Israel  are  the  true,  ideal  Israel  of  God  (comp.  Rom. 
iii.  28). 

( 7-9. )  This  appears  from  the  history  of  the  patriarchal 
lineage.  Though  Abraham  had  two  sons,  Ishmael  and 
Isaac,  Isaac  was  selected  as  the  channel  of  the  Messianic 
seed  of  Abraham,  according  to  the  promise,  '*  In  Isaac  shall 


Paul's  argument.  69 

thy  seed  be  called"  (comp.  Gal.  iv.  23),  and  not  Ishmael, 
who  was  the  child  of  Abraham  in  a  physical  sense  merely, 
and  not  the  child  of  the  promise  which  is  recorded  in 
Gen.  xviii.  10. 

( 10-13. )  Not  only  have  we  an  example  of  divine  select- 
ion in  the  case  of  children  of  different  mothers,  but  we 
have  an  example  in  the  case  of  the  children  of  the  same 
mother.  Between  Jacob  and  Esau,  representatives  of  the 
two  nations  of  Israel  and  Edom  ( Gen.  xxv.  23 ),  a  divine 
choice  was  made,  and  it  was  declared  by  God  that  the 
elder  should  serve  the  younger.  This  choice  was  not 
based  upon  purity  of  descent,  since  both  children  were  by 
the  same  father  and  lawful  mother.  Nor  was  it  based 
upon  moral  superiority,  since  it  was  made  before  they  had 
done  either  good  or  evil.  The  choice  was  made  according 
to  God's  sovereign  will,  so  that  His  Messianic  purpose 
might  remain  intact ;  the  characteristic  of  which  purpose 
was  that  it  was  according  to  election  ;  that  is,  not  determ- 
ined by  merit  or  descent,  but  by  the  sovereign  pleasure 
of  God. 

( 14. )  If  it  be  asked,  therefore,  "  Is  there  unrighteous- 
ness with  God }  Does  God  contradict  Himself  in  His 
rejection  of  unbelieving  Israel.?"  —  it  must  be  answered, 
**No  !  "  If  there  was  no  unrighteousness  in  the  exclusion 
of  Ishmael  and  Edom  from  the  temporal  privileges  of  the 
chosen  people,  there  is  none  in  the  exclusion  of  the  per- 
sistently rebellious  Israelites  from  the  higher  privileges  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  If  not  all  the  physical  descend- 
ants of  Abraham  and  Isaac  can  claim  their  father's  name 
and  rights,  it  follows  that  God's  promise  is  not  violated  in 
excluding  from  His  kingdom  a  portion  of  the  descendants 
of  Jacob.  Descent 'cannot  be  pleaded  against  God's  right 
to  exclude,  since  He  has  already  excluded  from  the  Messi- 
anic line  without  regard  to  descent.     This  choice  Israel 


JO  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

approved,  and  cannot,  therefore,  repudiate  it  when  the 
same  choice  and  exclusion  are  applied  to  unbelieving 
Israel.  God  is  not  restricted  to  the  Hebrew  race,  nor 
bound  by  the  claims  of  descent.  As  He  chose  between 
the  children  of  the  flesh  and  the  children  of  the  promise, 
so  He  may  choose  between  mere  descendants  and  true 
believers,  whether  Jew  or  Gentile. 

It  is  to  be  remarked  on  this  passage  that  the  matter  of 
eternal,  individual  salvation  or  pretention  is  not  contem- 
plated in  the  argument,  as  it  is  not  in  Mai.  i.  2,  3,  from 
which  the  words  ''Jacob  have  I  loved,"  etc.,  are  quoted. 
The  matter  in  question  is  the  part  played  by  the  two 
nations  regarded  from  the  theocratic  standpoint. 

(15.)  God  cannot  be  unrighteous.  This  is  apparent 
from  your  own  Scriptures,  which,  as  you  admit,  glorify 
God's  righteousness,  and  which  give  you  God's  own  state- 
ments concerning  Himself  in  the  cases  of  Moses  and 
Pharaoh.  There  can,  therefore,  be  no  discrepancy  between 
God's  righteousness  and  the  principle  for  which  I  am  con- 
tending, since  God  represents  Himself  as  acting  on  this 
very  principle :  Divine  choice  is  not  fotmded  up07i  human 
desert.  Man  has  7io  right  to  God' s  favors.  For  when 
Moses  asked  God  to  show  him  His  glory,  God,  in  com- 
plying, assured  him  that  He  did  not  grant  the  request 
on  the  ground  of  Moses'  merit  or  services,  but  solely  of 
His  own  free  mercy.  He  would  have  mercy  and  compas- 
sion upon  whom  He  would.  Moses  had  no  claim  upon 
that  revelation. 

(16.)  Thus  it  appears  that  the  divine  bestowment  pro- 
ceeds from  sovereign  grace,  and  not  from  the  will  or  the 
effort  of  the  recipient.  Hence  the  Jew  cannot  claim  it  on 
the  ground  of  race  or  of  moral  striving. 

It  is  right  to  wish  and  right  to  rnn.  Paul  elsewhere 
says,  "So  run  that  ye  may  obtain  "   (i   Cor.  ix.  24).     But 


PAULS    ARGUMENT.  7I 

that  is  not  now  the  point  in  view.  The  point  is  to  emphas- 
ize the  fact  of  God's  sovereign  right  to  dispense  His  favors 
as  He  will,  in  opposition  to  the  Jew's  claim  that  God  must 
dispense  His  favors  to  him  on  the  ground  of  his  descent. 
Hence  the  argument  bears  also  on  the  divine  dealing  with 
the  Gentiles.  The  Jew  says,  "The  Jews  alone  are  subjects 
of  the  divine  mercy;  the  Gentiles  are  excluded."  Paul  re- 
plies, "  Your  own  Scriptures  show  you  that  God  has  the 
right  to  show  mercy  to  whom  He  will.  The  fact  that  He 
originally  did  not  choose  the  Gentile  but  chose  the  Jew, 
does  not  exclude  Him  from  extending  His  salvation  to  the 
Gentile  if  He  so  will.  The  fact  that  He  did  so  choose 
the  Jew,  does  not  save  the  Jew  from  the  peril  of  exclusion 
and  rejection." 

(17.)  Again,  God  is  vindicated  against  the  charge  of 
injustice  by  His  declaration  of  the  same  principle  applied 
to  the  matter  of  witJiholding  mercy  in  the  case  of  Pharaoh. 
The  one  statement  implies  the  other.  The  right  to  bestow 
at  will  implies  the  right  to  withhold  at  will.  Thus  He  says 
to  Pharaoh  that  He  has  raised  him  up  in  order  to  show  His 
power  through  his  defeat  and  destruction. 

(18.)  Hence  the  conclusion.  God  has  the  absolute  right 
to  dispense  or  to  withhold  mercy  at  pleasure.  ''  He  hath 
mercy  upon  whom  He  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  He  will 
He  hardeneth." 

This  last  statement,  on  its  face,  appears  to  be  the  asser- 
tion of  a  rigid,  inexorable  predeterminism.  But  let  it  be 
at  once  said  that  Paul  commits  himself  to  no  such  theory. 
For  to  interpret  this  passage  as  meaning  that  God  takes 
deliberate  measures  to  harden  any  man  against  holy  and 
gracious  influences,  so  as  to  encourage  him  to  sin  in  order 
that  He  may  show  His  power  in  destroying  him,  is  : 

I.  To  ascribe  to  God  the  most  monstrous  cruelty  and 
injustice,  according  to  the  standard  of  His  own  re- 
vealed character  and  law. 


^2  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

2.  To  make  God  the  author  and  promoter  of  sin. 

3.  To    contradict    other   declarations    of    Scripture,    as 

I  Tim.  ii.  4  ;  Jas.  i.  13 ;  2  Pet.  iii.  9. 

4.  To  contradict  the  facts  in  Pharaoh's  own  case,  since 

God  gave  Pharaoh  abundant  warning,  instruction, 
and  call  and  inducement  to  repentance. 

The  key-note  of  the  discussion  must  be  kept  clearly  in 
mind  as  shaping  this  particular  form  of  statement.  To 
repeat  :  Paul  is  striking  sharply  at  the  assumption  of  the 
Jew  that  God  must  dispense  Messianic  blessing  to  him, 
and  must  not  exclude  him,  because  he  is  a  Jew.  Paul 
meets  this  with  the  bare  statement  of  God's  sovereign 
right  to  dispose  of  men  as  He  will.  He  does  not  ignore 
the  efforts  which  God  makes  to  save  men  from  blindness 
and  hardness  of  heart,  but  the  attitude  of  the  Jew  does 
not  call  for  the  assertion  of  these :  only  for  the  assertion 
of  God's  absolute  sovereignty  against  an  insolent  and  pre- 
sumptuous claim. 

Bearing  this  in  mind,  we  are  here  confronted  with  a  class 
of  facts  which  we  cannot  explain  —  certain  arrangements 
the  reasons  for  which  lie  back  in  the  sovereign  will  of  God. 
Moses  was  placed  under  circumstances  which  promoted  his 
becoming  the  leader  and  lawgiver  of  God's  people.  Pharaoh 
was  born  to  an  inheritance  of  despotic  power  and  inhaled 
from  his  birth  the  traditions  of  Oriental  tyranny.  These 
influences  went  to  harden  him  against  God's  command. 
Apparently  the  circumstances  favored  Pharaoh's  becoming 
a  cruel  tyrant.  Why  the  difference  t  We  cannot  tell. 
These  causes  operated  according  to  their  natural  law. 
There  was  also  the  operation  of  a  psychological  and  moral 
law,  according  to  which  the  indulgence  of  any  evil  passion 
or  impulse  confirms  it  and  fosters  its  growth.  Pride  begets 
pride ;  resistance  intensifies  obstinacy,  encourages  presump- 
tion, blunts  susceptibility  to  better  influences.     Again,  the 


PAUL  S    ARGUMENT.  73 

penal  element  entered  into  the  case.  Persistent  disobedi- 
ence and  resistance,  working  their  natural  result  of  inflated 
pride  and  presumptuous  foolhardiness,  wrought  out  a  condi- 
tion of  heart  which  invited  and  ensured  judgment.  A  par- 
allel is  found  in  the  first  chapter  of  this  epistle,  where  it 
is  said  that  the  heathen,  having  a  certain  revelation  of  God, 
refused  to  improve  it ;  wherefore,  as  they  did  not  like  to 
retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  God  gave  them  itp  to  un- 
cleanness,  vile  passions,  and  a  reprobate  mind  (i.  24,  26,  28). 

•'It  is  psychologically  impossible  that  such  determined  impenitence 
could  be  cherished  by  the  monarch,  and  yet  produce  no  effects  in  the 
sensibilities  of  his  heart.  In  such  necessary  working  the  hand  of  God 
must  needs  be  immanent.  When  we  impersonally  say  'must'  and 
speak  impersonally  of  '  necessity '  in  reference  to  the  conditions  of  the 
human  sensibility,  we  either  expressly  or  implicitly  point  to  the  opera- 
tion of  God.  God  did  harden  of  old,  and  still  He  hardens  when  sin  is 
cherished."  —  Morison. 

And  yet  the  operation  of  these  forces  did  not  exclude 
moral  agency  or  moral  freedom.  No  irresistible  con- 
straint compelled  Pharaoh  to  yield  to  this  pressure  towards 
evil.  His  power  of  choice  was  recognized,  assumed,  and 
appealed  to.  He  could  not  plead  ignorance,  for  God  in- 
structed him  through  Moses.  He  could  not  plead  doubt 
of  God's  power,  for  God  wrought  before  his  eyes  an  un- 
exampled series  of  wonders.  If  any  ^'visitings  of  nature" 
could  have  power  over  him,  the  misery  of  his  slave  popula- 
tion was  before  his  eyes.  Only  when  all  these  influences 
had  been  repelled,  and  all  opportunities  for  yielding  scorn- 
fully rejected,  did  God  have  recourse  to  judgment.  God 
raised  up  Pharaoh  in  order  to  show  His  power  ;  but  two 
opposite  exhibitions  of  God's  power  in  Pharaoh  were 
possible.  If  he  had  yielded,  he  would  have  been  a  co- 
worker with  God  in  the  evolution  of  the  Jewish  Common- 
wealth.    God's   power  would  have  been  displayed  in  the 


74 


HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 


prosperity  of  his  kingdom,  as  it  was  through  the  presence 
of  Joseph.  He  resisted,  and  God's  power  was  terribly 
manifested  in  his  torment  and  final  destruction. 

"No  one,"  as  Miiller  observes,  "can  withdraw  himself 
from  the  range  and  influence  of  God's  revelations,  without 
altering  his  moral  status."  *  Hence,  though  it  is  affirmed 
that  God  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart,  —  the  side  of  the 
statement  which  best  suits  the  immediate  purpose  of  Paul's 
argument,  —  it  is  also  affirmed  that  Pharaoh  hardened  his 
own  heart  (comp.  Exod.  iv.  21  ;  vii.  3;  ix.  12;  x.  20,  27; 
xi.  10;  and  viii.  15,  32;  ix.  34). f  The  divine  and  the 
human  agencies  work  freely  side  by  side. 

The  cases  of  both  Moses  and  Pharaoh  make  against  the 
charge  of  God's  injustice  towards  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
since  they  show  that  He  acts  consistently  on  the  principle 
of  exercising  His  divine  sovereignty  according  to  His 
supreme  will  ;  but  they  also  furnish  another  argument  to 
the  same  effect,  by  showing  that  He  exercises  His  sover- 
eignty with  long-suffering  and  mercy.  The  God  who  acts 
with  mercy  and  forbearance  cannot  be  unrighteous.  God's 
revelation  to  Moses  was  a  display  of  His  great  mercy.  In 
it  He  revealed  "the  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  long- 
suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth,  keeping 
mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity,  transgression,  and 
sin,  and  that  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty  "  (Exod. 
xxxiv.  6,  7).  God's  dealing  with  Pharaoh  was  marked  by 
forbearance,  opportunities  for  repentance,  instruction  and 
chastisement. 


*  "  Doctrine  of  Sin." 

t  Cheyne,  on  Isaiah  vi.  9,  10,  which  should  be  compared  with  this  passage,  says 
that  the  phrase  "  hardening  of  the  heart "  is  only  twice  applied  to  individuals  in 
books  of  the  Old  Testament;  namely,  to  Pharaoh,  and  to  Sihon,  king  of  Heshbon. 
(Deut.  ii.  30).  Jews  never  have  this  phrase  applied  to  them,  but  only  the  Jewish 
nation  or  sections  of  it,  as  Lsa.  vi.  y.  10 ;  xxix.  10.  —  The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah. 
Comp.  lsa.  Ixiii.  17. 


PAUL  S    ARGUMENT.  75 

Verses  19,  20,  21,  are  not  properly  part  of  the  proof,  but 
are  introduced  by  way  of  rebuke  to  a  presumptuous  quest- 
ion or  challenge  ;  so  that,  in  the  regular  line  of  the  argu- 
ment, we  may  proceed  directly  from  the  close  of  ver.  18  to 
ver.  22. 

(19.)  The  objector  now  catches  at  the  words,  "whom 
He  will  He  hardeneth,"  as  an  opportunity  for  shifting  the 
responsibility  from  himself  to  God.  If  God  hardens,  why 
blame  the  hardened  ?  If  God  ordains,  who  can  resist 
His  will .? 

The  fault  of  interpretation  at  this  point  lies  in  constru- 
ing Paul's  answer  as  a  counter-argument ;  whereas  Paul 
does  not  entertain  the  objector's  words  as  an  argument 
at  all.  He  neither  admits,  denies,  nor  answers  them  as  an 
argument.  His  reply  is  directed  solely  at  the  objector's 
attitude  as  a  challenger  of  God.  It  is  a  rebuke  of  the 
creature  for  charging  his  sin  upon  the  Creator.  Paul  is 
not  dealing  with  the  objector's  logic,  but  with  the  subUme 
impudence  of  the  objector  himself.  He  is  not  vindicating 
God  against  the  charge,  nor  exposing  the  falsity  of  the 
charge  itself. 

For  if  this  answer  of  Paul,  with  the  similitude  of  the 
potter  and  the  clay,  is  to  be  taken  as  an  argument  for 
God's  right  to  harden  men  at  His  arbitrary  pleasure,  then 
Paul  is  open  to  rebuke  quite  as  much  as  his  opponent. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  the  answer  is  a  tacit  admission  of 
the  Jew's  premiss,  and,  in  the  second  place,  regarded  as 
an  answer  to  an  argument,  it  is  a  specimen  of  the  most 
brutal  dogmatism,  and  of  the  most  fallacious  and  shallow 
logic,  if  it  can  be  called  logic  at  all.  This  is  the  case,  in 
brief.  The  Jew.  **  God  hardens  at  His  arbitrary  will  and 
pleasure.  If,  therefore.  He  hardened  me  so  that  I  could 
not  beHeve,  He  is  to  blame,  not  I.  Why  does  He  find 
fault  with  me  for  not  believing }     If  He  is  supreme,  who 


76  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

can  resist  His  will  ? "  Paul.  "  Suppose  He  did  harden 
you  so  that  you  could  not  believe,  what  have  you  to  say 
about  it  ?  Shut  your  mouth  !  God  does  as  He  pleases 
with  you.  You  are  simply  a  lump  of  clay  in  the  hands  of 
a  potter,  and  must  be  content  to  be  what  the  potter  makes 
you." 

From  this  point  of  view  it  must  be  said  that  the  objector 
has  the  best  of  it,  and  that  Paul's  answer  is  no  answer. 
Regarded  as  an  argument,  it  is  an  argument  from  an  anal- 
ogy which  is  no  analogy.  Man,  on  God's  own  showing,  is 
not  a  lump  of  senseless  clay.  He  is  a  sentient,  reasoning 
being,  endowed  by  God  with  the  power  of  self-determina- 
tion. God  Himself  cannot  and  does  not  treat  him  as  a 
lump  of  clay  ;  and  to  assert  such  a  relation  between  God 
and  man  made  in  God's  image,  is  to  assert  what  is  contrary 
to  common  sense  and  to  God's  own  declarations  and  as- 
sumptions in  Scripture.  The  objector  might  well  turn 
upon  Paul  and  say,  "  Well  then,  if  man  is  only  a  lump  of 
clay,  and  therefore  without  right  or  power  to  reply,  who, 
pray,  art  t/io?i  that  repliest  for  God  ?  Thou  art,  on  thine 
own  showing,  a  lump  of  clay  like  myself.  If  clay  cannot 
and  must  not  reason  nor  answer,  what  is  the  peculiar 
quality  of  l/if  clay  which  entitles  thee  to  speak  as  God's 
advocate  ?" 

It  is  quite  safe  to  say  that  Paul  is  too  good  a  reasoner, 
and  too  well  acquainted  with  the  character,  the  word,  and 
the  economy  of  God  as  displayed  in  the  history  of  his  own 
race,  to  be  betrayed  into  any  such  logical  absurdity  as 
this  ;  too  thoroughly  humane,  too  mindful  of  his  own  deep 
doubts  and  questionings,  too  transparently  candid  to  meet 
even  a  conceited  and  presumptuous  argument  with  a  coun- 
ter-argument consisting  of  a  bare  dogma  and  a  false  anal- 
ogy. Paul  does  not  admit  that  God  made  the  Jew  sin. 
He  does  not  admit  that  God  made  the  Jew  incapable  of 


Paul's  argument.  JJ 

believing.     He  does  not  admit  that  the  responsibiHty  for 
the  Jew's  rejection  lies  anywhere  but  with  himself. 

Yet  even  the  figure  of  the  potter  and  the  clay,  properly 
understood,  might  have  suggested  to  the  angry  Jew  some- 
thing beside  the  thought  of  sovereign  power  and  will 
arbitrarily  moulding  helpless  matter. 

THE  POTTER  AND  THE  CLAY. 

The  illustration  is  a  common  one  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  it  is  reasonable  that  Paul's  use  of  it  should  be  colored 
by  its  usage  there. 

It  occurs  in  Jeremiah  xviii.  i-io.  Jeremiah,  in  great 
despondency  over  the  demoralization  of  Israel,  is  bidden 
to  go  down  to  the  potter's  house.  The  potter  shaped  a 
vessel  on  the  wheel,  but  owing  to  some  defect  in  the  clay, 
the  vessel  was  marred.  So  the  potter  made,  of  the  same 
lump,  another  vessel  different  from  that  which  he  had  at 
first  designed.  He  did  not  throw  away  the  clay,  but  his 
skill  prevailed  to  triumph  over  the  defect,  and  to  make  a 
vessel,  perhaps  inferior  to  the  first,  yet  still  capable  of  use. 
So  God  had  designed  Israel  for  a  high  destiny,  a  royal 
nation,  a  peculiar  people ;  but  Israel  defeated  this  destiny 
by  its  idolatries  and  rebellions.  Hence  God  made  it 
another  and  baser  vessel.  ".The  pressure  of  the  potter's 
hand  was  to  be  harder.  Shame  and  suffering  and  exile  — 
their  land  left  desolate,  and  they  themselves  weeping  by 
the  waters  of  Babylon  —  this  was  the  process  to  which 
they  were  now  called  on  to  submit."  The  potter  exer- 
cised his  power  by  making  the  vessel  unto  dishonor  which 
he  originally  designed  unto  honor.  Side  by  side  with  the 
potter's  power  over  the  clay,  there  goes,  figuratively  speak- 
ing, in  the  prophet's  representation,  the  power  of  change 
and  choice  in  the  lump.  "Ye  are  in  my  hand  as  this  clay 
in  the  hand  of  the  potter.      If,  when  I  am  about  to  degrade 


yS  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

the  nation,  they  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of  the 
evil.  On  the  contrary,  when  I  am  planning  for  an  honor- 
able and  powerful  kingdom,  if  the  people  turn  to  evil,  then 
I  will  repent  of  the  good  wherewith  I  said  that  I  would 
benefit  them."  Israel  has  a  power  of  choice.  If  it  is 
made  into  a  vessel  unto  dishonor,  the  fault  is  its  own,  but 
repentance  and  submission  may  change  the  issue. 

Look  again  at  Isaiah  xxix.  i6.  This  passage  occurs  in  the 
prophecy  concerning  Jerusalem  under  the  name  of  Ariel. 
The  prophet  predicts  siege,  thunder,  and  earthquake.  He 
says  that  the  Lord  hath  poured  on  the  people  the  spirit 
of  deep  sleep,  and  hath  closed  their  eyes  and  covered  their 
heads,  so  that  the  prophetic  vision  appeals  to  them  as  a 
sealed  letter  to  a  man  who  can  read,  or  as  a  writing  to  one 
who  cannot  read. 

This  is  on  the  same  line  with  the  hardening  of  Pharaoh's 
heart.  It  is  ascribed  to  the  direct  agency  of  God.  But 
immediately  there  follows  the  statement  of  their  own 
responsibility  for  their  sin.  The  people  have  removed 
their  heart  from  the  Lord  and  worship  Him  with  the  lips 
only.  Therefore,  God  will  proceed  to  do  marvellous  and 
terrible  works  among  them.  O  your  perverseness  !  Think 
you  you  can  hide  your  counsel  from  God .?  '*  Surely  your 
turning  of  things  upside  down  shall  be  esteemed  as  the  pot- 
ter's clay  ;  for  shall  the  work  say  of  him  that  made  it,  '  He 
made  me  not ' }  or  shall  the  thing  framed  say  of  him  that 
framed  it,  'He  hath  no  understanding'.-*"  In  other  words, 
why  do  men  think  that  they  can  escape  God  by  hiding 
their  purposes  from  Him .?  Shall  God  (the  potter)  be 
accounted  as  clay  (the  man)  }  Shall  man  ignore  the  fact 
that  he  was  made  by  God,  and  act  as  if  God  had  no  under- 
standing }  The  parallel  between  this  utterance  and  that  in 
Romans  ix.  will  be  evident  at  a  glance. 

Isa.  xlv.  9.     The  prophecy  concerning  Cyrus.     God  calls 


PAUL  S    ARGUMENT.  79 

him,  though  a  heathen,  for  the  sake  of  Jacob  His  servant, 
and  Israel  His  elect.  In  this  call  God  asserts  His  sov- 
ereignty :  *'  I  am  Jehovah,  and  there  is  none  else.  I 
girded  thee  when  thou  knewest  me  not."  This  idea  is 
further  carried  out  by  the  figure  of  the  potter  and  the 
clay.  ''Woe  to  him  that  striveth  with  his  maker.  Let 
the  potsherd  strive  with  the  potsherds  of  the  earth.  Shall 
the  clay  say  to  him  that  fashioned  it,  '  What  makest  thou  ? ' 
or  thy  work,  '  He  hath  no  hands '} "  The  same  thought 
appears  in  ver.  lo.  Shall  a  child  remonstrate  with  its 
parents  because  they  have  brought  into  the  world  a  being 
weak,  ugly,  or  deformed  ?  And  again,  in  ver.  1 1  :  "  Con- 
cerning the  things  to  come  will  ye  question  me  ?  Concern- 
ing my  children  and  the  work  of  my  hands,  will  ye  lay 
commands  upon  me  ?  It  was  I  that  made  the  earth  and 
created  the  men  upon  it,"  etc. 

Along  with  these  declarations  of  absolute  sovereignty, 
which  silence  the  lips  of  men,  stand  exhortations  which 
assume  the  power  of  free  choice.  "  I  said  not  unto  the 
seed  of  Jacob  'seek  ye  me  in  vain.'"  "Assemble  your- 
selves and  come."  "Let  them  take  counsel  together." 
"Turn  ye  unto  me  and  be  ye  saved." 

Isa.  Ixiv.  8.  "And  now  Jehovah,  thou  art  our  Father. 
We  are  the  clay,  and  thou  art  our  fashioner,  and  the  work 
of  thy  hands  are  we  all."  But  ver.  5,  "Behold  thou  wast 
wroth,  and  we  sinned,  and  zve  we7it  astray :  our  iniquities  as 
the  wind  have  carried  us  away.  Thou  hast  delivered  us 
into  the  hand  of  onr  iniquities^  "Since  thou  art  our 
fashioner,  and  we  the  clay,  look  upon  us  :  remember  not 
iniquity  forever." 

By  all  these  Old  Testament  passages  the  idea  of  God 
dealing  with  men  as  hfeless  clay,  shaping  them  to  eternal 
life  or  death  according  to  His  arbitrary  will,  is  contra- 
dicted.    The  illustration  points  away  from  God's  causing 


So  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

unbelief,  to  God's  bearing  with  man's  voluntary  and  per- 
sistent disobedience,  and  to  His  making  of  him  the  best 
that  can  be  made  consistently  with  divine  justice  and 
holiness.  So  far  from  accentuating  rigid  narrowness  of 
purpose,  arbitrary  and  inexorable  destination  of  individuals 
to  honor  or  dishonor,  the  illustration  opens  a  vast  range 
and  free  play  of  divine  purpose  to  turn  evil  to  good,  and 
to  shape  men  into  obedient  and  faithful  servants  through 
divine  chastisements.  The  potter  does  not  make  vessels 
in  order  to  shiver  them.  God  does  not  make  men  in  order 
to  destroy  them.  God  ordains  no  man  to  eternal  death. 
He  desires  to  honor  humanity,  not  to  dishonor  it ;  and  the 
fact  that  men  do  become  vessels  unto  dishonor,  merely 
proves  the  power  which  God  has  lodged  in  the  human  will 
of  modifying,  and  in  a  sense  defeating,  His  sovereign  pur- 
pose of  love.  He  "  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved  and 
come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  "  ;  yet  Christ  comes  to 
Hzs  own,  and  His  own  receive  Him  not,  and  He  weeps 
as  He  exclaims,  "Ye  will  not  come  unto  me  that  ye  might 
have  life." 

(22.)  The  argument  now  proceeds  in  regular  course 
from  ver.  18,  showing  that  the  exercise  of  God's  sovereign 
right  is  marked  by  mercy  even  towards  those  who  deserve 
His  wrath.  Are  you  disposed  to  construe  the  words 
"whom  He  will  He  hardeneth  "  into  an  assertion  of  the 
arbitrary,  relentless,  and  unjust  severity  of  God  }  Suppose 
it  can  be  shown  that  God,  though  the  spontaneous  recoil 
of  His  holy  nature  from  sin  moved  Him  to  display  His 
wrath  and  make  known  His  power  against  men  who  were 
fit  for  destruction,  —  endured  these  with  much  long-suf- 
fering. 

This  could  easily  be  shown  from  the  case  of  the  Israel- 
ites themselves  and  of  Pharaoh. 

Did  not  this  endurance  imply  opportunity  to  repent,  and 


Paul's  argUxMent.  8i 

assume  that  destruction  was  not  God's  arbitrary  choice,  but 
theirs  ? 

Still  further,  what  if  God,  through  this  same  endurance, 
was  working  not  only  to  save  the  Jewish  people  if  possible, 
but  also  to  work  out  a  larger  purpose  towards  a  people 
which,  in  His  eternal  counsels,  He  had  destined  for  the 
glory  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom  ? 

Here  He  introduces  the  subject  of  the  inclusion  of  the 
Gentiles  in  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  God  is  merciful  in 
carrying  out  His  will,  but  in  His  mercy  He  none  the  less 
carries  out  His  will.  Both  His  sovereignty  and  IJis  mercy 
will  be  vindicated  in  His  making  a  people  for  Himself 
from  the  Gentiles  and  from  the  believing  Jews.  What 
has  Israel  to  say  ?  The  word  of  God  has  not  been  brought 
to  nought  by  his  rejection.  The  principle  of  divine  select- 
ion which  operated  in  Abraham  and  Jacob  is  carried  out 
in  the  selection  of  believing  Israel  from  the  unbelieving 
mass,  and  in  the  call  of  the  Gentiles.  The  elective  pur- 
pose of  God  was  broader  than  Israel  thought.  In  choos- 
ing Israel  God  was  contemplating  the  salvation  of  the 
world,  and  did  not  abdicate  His  liberty  to  reject  unbe- 
lievers, or  to  call  others  not  Jews. 

With  this  should  be  compared  the  discourse  of  Jesus  in 
John  vi.  After  having  given  a  sign  of  His  divine  power 
and  commission  by  the  feeding  of  the  multitudes,  His 
announcement  of  Himself  as  the  bread  from  heaven,  the 
true  and  only  life  of  the  world,  is  met  with  a  stupid,  materi- 
alistic construction  of  His  words,  and  with  obstinate  incred- 
ulity ;  whereupon  He  says,  ''  Ye  also  have  seen  me  and 
believe  not "  (ver.  36).  At  this  point  He  seems  to  pause 
and  contemplate  His  failure  to  reach  the  Jews,  and  to  ask 
Himself  if  His  mission  is  indeed  for  nought.  It  is  the 
answer  to  this  inward  question  which  explains  the  appar- 
ent disconnection  of  ver.  '2>7  with  what  precedes.     Though 


82  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

the  Jews  reject,  yet  God  will  have  a  people  for  Himself. 
"All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me,"  There 
is  a  clear  foreshadowing  here  of  the  call  of  the  Gentiles. 

(25,  26.)  But  not  only  is  God's  word  not  annulled  ;  it  is 
fulfilled.  For  He  says  by  the  prophet  Hosea  that  He  will 
call  by  the  name  viy  people  those  who  are  not  His  people, 
and  that  nation  beloved  which  was  not  beloved  ;  and  in  the 
Gentile  lands,  where  God,  by  the  punishment  of  exile,  said 
to  Israel,  ''ye  are  not  my  people,"  there  God  would  visit 
them  and  recall  them  along  with  the  Gentiles. 

Here  the  apostle  applies  to  the  Gentiles  what  Hosea 
said  of  the  Jews  only.  The  tribes,  by  their  lapse  into 
idolatry,  had  placed  themselves  on  the  same  footing  with 
the  Gentiles  (not  His  people),  so  that  the  general  truth 
could  be  applied  to  both.  In  Isaiah  xlix.  22,  the  Gentiles 
are  represented  as  restored  to  grace  along  with  the  Jews. 

(27-29.)  But  this  people  shall  not  consist  of  Gentiles 
only  ;  for  God  says  by  Isaiah  that  a  remnant  shall  be  pre- 
served out  of  Israel,  a  small  number  out  of  the  great  un- 
believing mass,  which  shall  attain  to  the  salvation  and 
privileges  of  the  Messianic  Kingdom,  a  re^nnajit :  for  God 
in  His  righteous  judgment  will  make  a  summary  reckon- 
ing with  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  great  body  of  it  shall 
be  cut  off ;  but  a  remnant  shall  be  left  as  a  seed  by  which 
the  true  people  of  God  shall  be  perpetuated.  This  preser- 
vation of  a  remnant  is  a  mark  of  divine  mercy.  But  for 
this,  the  whole  nation  would  have  been  destroyed  like 
Sodom. 

(30.)  Paul  now  turns  to  the  facts  of  human  agency, 
moral  freedom,  and  consequent  responsibility,  which,  up  to 
this  point,  have  been  kept  in  the  shadow  of  the  truth  of 
divine  sovereignty.  There  is  a  correspondence  between 
God's  freedom  in  His  government  and  the  freedom  of 
men  in  their  faith  and  unbelief.      He  summarily  states  the 


Paul's  argument.  83 

truth  which  he  develops  in  ch.  x.  ;  namely,  that  Israel  was 
the  cause  of  its  own  rejectio7ty  alluding  at  the  same  time 
incidentally  to  the  cause  of  the  Gentiles'  reception. 

The  reason  why  the  Jews  were  rejected  was  because  they 
did  not  seek  after  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith,  but 
clung  to  the  law,  and  sought  to  be  justified  by  its  works. 
The  Gentiles,  who  had  no  revelation,  and  who  therefore 
did  not  seek  after  righteousness  in  the  New  Testament 
sense,  nevertheless  attained  it,  accepting  it  when  it  was 
offered,*  and  not  being  hindered  by  the  legal  bigotry  and 
pretension  of  the  Jew  ;  but  Israel,  following  after  the  law, 
which,  in  itself,  is  holy  and  just  and  good,  and  which  was 
intended  to  lead  to  Christ,  pursued  it  only  as  an  external 
standard  of  righteousness,  and  on  the  side  of  legal  observ- 
ance, and  so  found  a  stumbling-block  in  the  very  Messiah 
to  whom  it  led  them. 

CHAPTER    X. 

The  general  statement  in  ix.  30-33  is  developed. 

(1-3.)  Israel  was  zealous  for  God,  but  without  discern- 
ment of  the  true  meaning  and  tendency  of  the  law.  Hence, 
in  the  endeavor  to  establish  its  own  legal  righteousness,  it 
missed  the  righteousness  of  faith,  the  nature  of  which  is 
expounded  in  this  epistle. 

(4-1 1.)  They  did  not  perceive  that  Christ  brings  the  legal 
dispensation  to  an  end  in  introducing  Himself  as  the  object 
of  faith  and  the  source  of  justifying  righteousness.  They 
accepted  only  the  declaration  of  Moses  concerning  right- 
eousness, that  the  man  who  keeps  the  law  shall  live  by  it, 
and  did  not  see  that  the  law,  properly  understood,  implied 
also  the  work  of  grace  and  dependence  on  God.  They 
regarded  righteousness  as  something  remote  and  to  be  at- 


*  Godet  compares  the  parable  of  the  man  finding  treasure  hid  in  the  field. 


§4  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

tained  only  by  laborious  effort ;  whereas  even  Moses  would 
have  told  them  that  Jehovah's  help  was  near  at  hand  to 
assist  them  in  the  daily  understanding  and  keeping  of  the 
law.  No  one  need  be  sent  to  heaven  nor  beyond  the  sea 
to  bring  back  the  explanation  of  its  commandments,  or  to 
enable  them  to  fulfil  them.  Still  more  plainly,  to  the  same 
effect,  spoke  the  righteousness  of  faith  in  Christ.  No  need 
to  ascend  to  heaven  to  bring  Him  down.  He  has  already 
descended  to  earth.  No  need  to  dive  into  the  depths  of 
the  earth  to  bring  Him  up.  He  has  already  risen  from 
the  dead.  They  have  only  to  accept  by  faith  His  death 
and  His  resurrection,  and  to  confess  Him  who  has  accomp- 
lished in  Himself  the  two  great  things  which  needed  to 
be  done.  Such  faith  shall  not  put  them  to  shame.  They 
shall  be  saved  as  if  they  had  fulfilled  all  the  necessary 
conditions  themselves. 

(i2,  13.)  Not  only  is  this  salvation Z;'^^.  It  is  also  uni- 
versal, to  whosoever  shall  believe.  Thus  it  appeals  to  the 
Gentile  no  less  than  to  the  Jew.  It  strikes  at  the  notion 
that  the  Jew  alone  is  the  subject  of  Messianic  salvation  ; 
that  the  Gentile  must  enter  the  kingdom  through  the 
gate  of  Judaism.  Both  Jew  and  Gentile  enter  through 
faith  only.  There  is  no  difference  between  the  Jew  and 
the  Gentile.  The  Lord,  who  is  Lord  of  both  alike,  dis- 
penses His  riches  to  all  of  both  nations  who  call  upon 
Him. 

(14-21.)  The  Jew  cannot  plead  in  excuse  for  rejecting 
this  salvation,  either  that  he  has  not  heard  it  announced, 
or  that  its  universality  is  inconsistent  with  Old  Testament 
teaching.  Both  excuses  are  shattered  upon  Old  Testament 
declarations.  It  was  prophesied  by  Isaiah  that  Israel  would 
not  all  submit  themselves  to  the  Gospel.  The  good  tidings 
has  been  proclaimed,  but  they  have  not  believed  the  report. 
Faith  comes  by  hearing,  and  they  have  heard  the  Gospel 


Paul's  argument.  85 

in  their  cities  and  synagogues.*  Had  Israel  any  reason  to 
be  surprised  at  the  universality  of  the  Gospel  —  its  proclam- 
ation to  the  Gentiles  ?  On  the  contrary,  did  not  Israel 
know  ?  Had  not  Moses  and  Isaiah  prophesied  that  God 
would  manifest  His  grace  to  the  Gentiles,  and  that  the 
Gentiles  would  receive  it  —  yea,  that  through  the  Gentiles 
Israel  should  be  brought  back  to  God }  Did  not  Isaiah 
prophesy  that,  notwithstanding  God's  long-suffering  and 
entreaty,  Israel  would  prove  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying 
nation  ? 

Thus  the  argument  is,  Israel  is  responsible  for  its  own 
rejection.  In  blind  reliance  on  its  original  election,  it  has 
claimed  a  monopoly  of  divine  favor,  has  made  a  stand  for 
legal  righteousness,  and  has  rejected  the  Gospel  message 
of  salvation  by  faith.  It  has  thus  repelled  the  offer  of  a 
free  and  universal  salvation.  For  this  it  is  without  excuse. 
It  was  warned  by  its  own  Scriptures  of  the  danger  of  being 
superseded  by  the  Gentiles,  and  the  salvation  of  Christ 
was  offered  to  it  along  with  the  Gentiles  by  Christ's 
ministers. 

CHAPTER    XI. 

In  ch.  ix.  it  is  shown  that  when  God  elected  Israel 
He  did  not  abjure  the  right  to  reject  them  for  good 
reason. 

In  ch.  X.  this  reason  is  shown  to  be  their  unbelief. 

The  question  now  arises  :  Is  this  rejection  complete  mid 
forever  f  Paul  proceeds  to  show  that  the  rejection  is  not 
total,  but  partial ;  not  eternal,  but  temporary ;  and  that 
it  shall  subserve  the  salvation  of  mankind  and  of  the  Israel- 
itish  nation  itself. 

(2-6.)  From  the  history  of  Elijahr  he  shows  how,  in  the 
midst  of  general  moral  defection  and  decline,  God  preserved 


Comp.  John  vi.  44. 


S6  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

a  remnant  of  faithful  ones  ;  and  declares  that  the  same  is 
true  at  the  present  time. 

In  virtue  of  His  free  grace  displayed  in  His  original 
election,  God  has  not  left  the  nation  without  a  believing 
remnant.  The  elective  purpose  holds,  though  operating 
in  a  way  different  from  Israel's  vain  and  narrow  conception 
of  its  nature  and  extent.  The  preservation  of  this  remnant 
is  a  matter  of  God's  free  grace,  not  of  Israel's  merit. 

(7-10.)  The  case  then  stands  that  Israel  has  not  attained 
the  righteousness  which  it  sought  (in  the  wrong  way),  but 
the  chosen  remnant  kas  attained  it,  while  the  great  mass 
of  the  nation  was  blinded  according  to  the  prophecy  in 
Isaiah  xxix.  and  Psalm  Ixix. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that,  in  those  very  chapters,  the  full 
responsibility  of  those  who  are  punished  is  asserted ;  and 
that,  in  citing  the  psalm,  Paul  renders  the  HehvQw  for  those 
who  are  iit  security  by  the  words  for  a  reconipensey  thus 
indicating  a  just  retribution. 

(i  I,  12.)  The  rejection  of  the  Jews,  however,  is  not  total 
nor  final,  and  it  works  for  two  ulterior  ends  :  first,  the 
conversion  of  the  Gentile ;  second,  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews  by  means  of  the  converted  Gentiles. 

(i3~i5-)  Hence  Paul  labors  the  more  earnestly  for  the 
Gentiles,  with  a  view  to  promote  the  salvation  of  his  own 
race. 

(16-24.)  The  Gentiles,  however,  are  warned  against 
entertaining  contempt  for  the  Jews  on  account  of  their 
own  position  in  the  Messianic  Kingdom.  However  lapsed, 
Israel  still  retains  the  character  of  God's  holy  nation 
impressed  in  its  original  call;  and  this  original  call,  rep- 
resented in  the  fathers,  implies  its  future  restoration.  So 
far  from  despising  them,  the  Gentiles  are  to  remember 
that  they  themselves  are  not  the  original  stock,  but  only 
a  graft ;  and  to  take  warning  by  the  history  of  Israel,  that 


Paul's  argument.  d>j 

the  called  may  be  rejected,  and  that  they,  by  unbelief,  dis- 
obedience, and  rebellion,  may,  like  Israel,  forfeit  their  high 
privilege.  "  If  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take 
heed  lest  He  also  spare  not  thee."  ''  Behold,  therefore,  the 
goodness  and  severity  of  God  :  on  them  which  fell,  severity, 
but  toward  thee  goodness,  if  tJion  conti?iue  in  His  goodness  ; 
otherwise  thoii  also  shalt  be  cut  off!'  Israel,  too,  shall  be 
restored  to  its  place  in  God's  kingdom,  graffed  in  again, 
if  they  co7itinne  7iot  in  imbelief ;  much  more,  since  they  are 
natural  branches,  and  the  tree  is  their  own  native  stock. 

(25-32.)  Thus,  then,  the  plan  of  God  shall  work  itself 
out :  the  purpose,  so  much  of  which  was  enshrouded  in 
mystery,  shall  at  last  reveal  its  full,  grand  proportions. 
Through  the  Gentile,  Israel  shall  attain  the  righteousness 
of  faith  in  the  Deliverer  out  of  Zion.  God  has  made  no 
mistake.  He  does  not  repent  His  original  call,  nor  the 
displays  of  His  divine  grace  to  Israel,  nor  the  special  apti- 
tudes with  which  He  endowed  it,  in  order  to  make  it  the 
special  vehicle  of  His  salvation.  Jew  and  Gentile  have 
alike  been  unbelievers  and  disobedient,  but  the  unbelief  of 
both  has  been  overruled  to  the  inclusion  of  both  in  God's 
Messianic  Kingdom.  Thus  the  argument  which  opened  at 
the  beginning  of  the  epistle  with  the  condemnation  of  all, 
closes  with  mercy  upon  all. 


V. 

DIVINE    MERCY    MORALLY  OBLIGATORY. 

BY    THE    REV.    CHARLES    H.    PARKHURST,    D.D. 

It  is  one  of  the  peculiarities  of  Scripture  that  it  brings 
into  easy,  harmonious  relation  elements  of  divine  charac- 
ter that  to  uninspired  view  seem  discrepant  and  antithetic. 
An  interesting  instance  of  this  occurs  in  the  comprehen- 
sive and  conciliatory  view  of  God's  justice  and  mercy  as 
expressed  by  St.  John  when  he  says  :  ''  If  we  confess  our 
sins,  He  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins."  Just 
to  forgive  us,  which  is  to  say  that  God's  mercy  is  not  the 
rival  of  His  justice,  but  involved  in  His  justice  ;  that  mercy 
is  one  of  the  aspects  under  which  justice  shows  itself; 
that  divine  justice  is  not  imperilled  by  being  merciful,  but 
abrogated  by  not  being  merciful ;  that  mercy  is  not  a  qual- 
ity that  by  its  presence  adds  to  God's  glory,  but  a  quality 
that  by  its  absence  would  leave  God  without  any  glory. 

One  of  the  impressive  features  of  the  controversy  that 
is  now  being  waged  within  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  that 
it  is  not  a  Presbyterian  controversy  at  all,  but  the  local 
manifestation  of  a  struggle  that  virtually  ranges  among 
the  combatants  every  man  in  or  out  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  or  any  other  church  who  has  an  interest  in  the 
character  of  God  and  in  the  relation  of  God  to  the  beings 
that  He  has  created  in  His  own  image.  Every  man  is  es- 
sentially a  little  theologian  with  ideas  of  his  own  in  regard 


DIVINE    MERCY    MORALLY    OBLIGATORY.  89 

to  God  ;  and  however  restricted  and  sectional  the  present 
controversy  may  appear  to  be,  it  is  after  all  his  own  con- 
troversy, and  his  own  doctrinal  views  that  are  being  advo- 
cated or  impugned.  This  is  what  dignifies  the  occasion. 
All  of  Christendom  is  somehow  involved  in  it. 

At  the  first  look  of  it,  it  seems  exceedingly  unfortunate 
that  so  many  precious  weeks  of  a  year,  that  is  only  too 
short,  should  be  devoted  to  a  discussion  which  apparently 
connects  so  indirectly  with  the  essential  interests  of 
Christ's  cause  and  the  extension  of  His  kingdom.  No 
doubt  the  net  results  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  wrought 
by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  will  be  less  this  winter 
than  last,  so  far  as  results  are  to  be  calculated  by  the 
number  of  men  and  women  that  are  converted  to  Christ. 
Neither  pulpit  nor  pew  can  convey  or  receive  so  much 
in  the  way  of  Gospel  effect  when  interest  is  divided 
between  Christianity  considered  as  a  mode  of  divine  life 
and  Christianity  considered  as  a  form  of  human  opinion. 
It  is  on  this  account  that  with  a  considerable  show  of  rea- 
son this  expenditure  of  time  and  monopolizing  of  interest 
has  been  numerously  deplored. 

At  the  same  time,  as  soon  as  we  begin  to  discover  the 
long  ranges  of  effect  and  to  remember  that  the  largest 
efforts  have  always  to  be  arranged  for,  and  that  the  finest 
flowers  blossom  only  in  prepared  ground,  there  is  started 
the  surmise  that  getting  the  soil  in  order  may  have  as 
direct  a  bearing  upon  the  matter  of  a  harvest  as  does 
dropping  the  corn  in  the  furrows.  Gathering  out  the 
stones,  plucking  up  the  hard-hack  and  clearing  out  the 
sluiceways  are  as  much  a  part  of  husbandry  as  sowing 
wheat  in  May  or  threshing  wheat  in  October.  And  while 
we  may  be  disposed  to  consider  that  human  opinion  does 
not  come  very  close  to  the  core  of  the  Christian  matter, 
still  whatever  growths  we  may  hope  to  promote  in  the  way 


90  HOW    SHALL    WR    REVISE  ? 

of  holiness  of  heart  and  beauty  of  demeanor  must  have 
their  roots  in  the  soil  of  a  true  conception  of  God  and  of 
His  character.  What  we  think  about  God  will  largely  de- 
cide what  God  can  do  for  us  and  make  of  us  ;  and  the 
character  under  which  God  is  presented  by  a  church  or 
communion  through  its  accepted  creed  or  through  its 
clergy,  recognized  as  the  mouthpiece  of  the  church,  will 
determine  for  the  most  part  how  much  divine  effect  will 
admit  of  being  wrought  even  by  God's  own  spirit.  To 
grow  in  the  knowledge  of  God  is  to  grow  in  likeness  to 
Him.  Christ  converted  the  Samaritan  woman  not  by  en- 
larging upon  her  sin,  but  by  making  to  her  a  new  revela- 
tion of  God.  St.  John  looks  forward  to  the  time  when  we 
shall  be  like  Him  because  we  shall  see  Him  as  He  is.  So 
far  then  as  the  great  debate  shall  issue  in  a  more  defined 
and  juster  conception  of  God,  so  that  His  ministers  shall 
preach  Him  with  more  of  completeness  and  truthfulness, 
the  expenditure  of  time  will  show  itself  amply  warranted, 
and  present  loss  will  be  a  good  deal  more  than  compen- 
sated by  future  and  permanent  gain. 

It  might  also  seem  at  first  that  such  issues  could  be 
secured  by  methods  of  a  more  pacific  type.  While  the 
lan2:uao:e  used  on  either  side  has  been  almost  without 
exception  of  a  courteous  and  even  kindly  character,  yet 
there  is  no  disguising  the  fact  that  the  average  blood- 
temperature  of  those  standing  in  the  ranks  has  been  con- 
siderably above  the  normal.  In  other  words,  it  has  been 
a  square  theological  fight.  And  such  is  the  method  by 
which  generally  in  the  history  of  human  opinion  truth  has 
come  to  its  development  and  manifestation.  The  growth 
of  idea  is  regularly  along  frictional  lines.  Nothing  good 
or  true  is  gained  but  that  has  in  some  way  to  be  fought 
for.  The  wheels  of  progress,  whether  in  matters  of  sci- 
ence, politics,  ethics,  or  religion,  do  not  roll  over  a  macada- 


DIVINE    MERCY    MORALLY    OBLIGATORY.  9I 

mized  highway.  Truth  is  set  free  under  strokes  of 
contradiction  as  sparks  issue  from  clashing  flint,  and  as 
the  precious  metal  is  released  under  the  blows  of  the 
quartz-crusher.  Our  minds  are  not  keen  and  quick  enough 
to  feel  profoundly  a  truth  except  as  it  is  set  over  against 
its  correlative.  The  powder  that  has  been  burned  the  last 
few  months  has  made  clearer  and  more  distinguishable  the 
very  battle-ground  on  which  the  cartridges  have  been  dis- 
charged. Contrasting  ideas  have  been  put  with  a  definite- 
ness  that  has  been  a  novelty  and  a  surprise.  Something 
has  been  done  that  is  going  to  stay  done.  There  has  been 
a  good  deal  of  fog  scattered  both  out  of  the  air  and  out  of 
our  own  minds.  We  have  had  shown  on  the  one  hand  a 
God  whose  love  is  so  great  a  part  of  His  infinitude  that 
there  is  enough  of  it  for  every  creature  made  in  the  image 
of  God  to  have  a  share ;  and  over  against  that  have  had 
portrayed  to  us  a  God  in  whom  love  is  so  an  accident  and 
afterthought  of  His  being,  that  it  ill  suffices  to  enfold  all 
His  children,  compelling  Him  to  an  arbitrary  selection  of 
the  particular  few  to  whom  His  mercy  shall  be  allowed  to 
extend  and  to  whose  salvation  and  eternal  weal  it  shall  be 
permitted  to  redound.  Now  that,  stripped  of  all  evasive 
periphrasis  and  rhetorical  attenuation,  is  the  just  statement 
of  the  two  positions.  The  putting  of  these  two  antitheses 
over  against  each  other  is  wondrously  educating  ;  and  the 
very  sharpness  of  the  contest  has  only  resulted  in  evincing 
more  and  more  fully  their  glaring  incompatibility.  Matters 
have  in  this  way  gotten  out  very  fully  into  the  light.  The 
bird  had  been  living  very  comfortably  in  its  shell,  but  hav- 
ing once  pecked  through  into  the  air,  the  shell  will  never 
again  be  large  enough  to  hold  it.  God  does  His  utmost  to 
save  everybody;  that  is  our  position.  God  does  His  utmost 
to  save  a  part  and  passes  by  the  rest ;  that  is  the  other 
position.     That   last,  according  to  what  seems  to  us  the 


92  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

only  fair  mode  of  interpretation,  is  the  doctrine  of  our 
Confession  of  Faith.  And  it  amounts  to  nothing  for  the 
advocates  of  the  latter  to  say  that  we  mistake  their  views 
so  long  as  they  refuse  to  alter  by  so  much  as  a  syllable 
those  expressions  in  the  Confession  that  make  it  necessary 
for  us  to  suppose  that  such  are  their  views.  We  have  no 
disposition  to  say  that  they  are  obstinate.  We  have  no 
disposition  to  say  that  they  hold  opinions  that  are  more 
brutal  than  they  have  the  courage  possibly  to  confess. 
We  only  say  that  the  revisionists  represent  the  doctrine 
of  an  unlimited  atonement,  and  that  the  anti-revisionists 
represent  the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement,  and  claim  to 
believe  in  a  God  who  ordains  some  men  to  perdition  before 
they  are  born,  and  consistently  therewith  withholds  from 
them  the  influences  of  regenerating  power  ;  and  that  just 
this  sharp  enunciation  of  sharply  contrasted  opinions  has 
brought  about,  in  a  way  that  nothing  else  could,  the  clear- 
ing of  men's  minds,  and  has  so  exhibited  the  two  concep- 
tions of  God,  each  in  its  own  individuality,  that  the  one 
of  the  two  that  is  truest  will  henceforth  have  a  better  op- 
portunity than  ever  to  win  its  way  in  the  regards  of  God's 
people. 

As  already  said,  there  is  nothing  in  the  range  of  relig- 
ious knowledge  that  we  need  so  much  to  know  as  the 
divine  character.  To  show  us  this  is  the  object  of  revela- 
tion. The  verse  quoted  at  the  beginning  of  this  article  is 
of  value  because  it  gives  us  an  insight  into  God's  character. 
God  is  the  world's  proper  study.  If  we  knew  Him  as  He 
is,  we  should  be  like  Him.  Clearly  there  is  no  end  to  the 
study.  The  finite  mind  would  have  to  contemplate  God 
till  eternity's  sundown  before  the  ground  would  all  be 
traversed.  A  creed  is  a  statement  first  of  all  of  what  its 
authors  have  learned  to  know  about  God.  It  is  a  report  of 
progress.     It  is  vahd  for  the  date  that  it  is  written.     It  is 


DIVINE    MERCY    MORALLY    OBLIGATORY.  93 

not  valid  for  the  day  after  unless  the  students  of  God  have 
in  the  mean  time  been  taking  a  recess.  A  creed  is  bound 
to  be  a  theological  terminus  a  quo,  not  a  terminus  ad  qiiein. 
The  Holy  Spirit,  too,  is  in  the  world  not  to  review  us  in  old 
truth,  but  to  guide  us  into  new  truth.  A  live  Christian 
swayed  by  the  illuminating  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
appointed  to  be  a  sort  of  Columbus  continually  on  the 
edge  of  a  new  continent.  In  matters  of  secular  enterprise 
we  widen  our  outlook  by  standing  on  the  shoulders  of  our 
fathers.  In  matters  of  religious  emprise  we  are  bidden  to 
behave  ourselves  and  stand  in  the  old  shoes  of  our  fathers. 
Two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  a  company  of  English- 
men of  varying  ability  and  piety  gathered  together  and 
wrote  down  what  they  knew  or  thought  they  knew  of  God, 
and  therein  produced  what  we  call  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion of  Faith.  Anti-revisionists  have  been  telling  us  these 
months  past  that  that  statement  to  the  dotting  of  an  "i  " 
and  the  crossing  of  a  '' t  "  is  a  just  statement  of  what  ive 
know  about  God.  Now,  if  that  is  true,  it  is  true  for  one 
of  three  reasons  :  either  that  the  Westminster  divines  had 
gotten  clear  out  to  the  end  of  the  knowledge  of  God  ;  or 
the  Holy  Spirit  had  gotten  tired  of  leading  men  into  new 
and  wider  apprehensions  ;  or  the  students  of  God  through- 
out Christendom  have  been  on  a  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years'  vacation.  The  first  two  would  be  to  blaspheme  God, 
and  the  third  would  be  to  insult  the  church. 

But  the  reply  comes  back,  **  We  have  had  no  new  Bible 
the  mean  time  ;  how,  then,  can  we  make  fresh  acquisition 
of  religious  knowledge  } "  The  farmer  has  no  new  land 
from  year  to  year,  but  because  the  soil  has  not  been  ex- 
hausted, and  the  sun  has  not  got  tired  of  shining  or  the 
clouds  of  raining,  he  has  no  trouble  in  raising  a  new  crop 
of  fruit  and  grain  every  year.  Physical  science  has  no  new 
universe  to  work  on  ;  but  the  geological  creed  of  fifty  years 


94  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  f 

ago,  or  the  chemical,  or  the  astronomical,  will  not  stand  as 
a  symbol  of  to-day's  knowledge  in  these  ranges  of  discov- 
ery. Only  a  dead  science  never  outgrows  its  creed  ;  only 
a  dead  man  is  fitted  with  garments  that  need  never  to  be 
replaced  by  a  fresh  suit  ;  and  a  creed  as  detailed  as  ours, 
that  will  for  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  suffice  in  its  every 
expression  to  utter  the  religious  knowledge  of  a  great 
communion  of  believers,  is  far  less  to  be  considered  the 
habiliments  of  a  living  church  than  it  is  the  cerements  of 
an  ecclesiastical  mummy  ;  and  for  such  a  waxed  and  sheeted 
body  to  fidget  in  its  coffin,  strain  at  its  grave-clothes,  and 
open  its  eyes  and  ask  to  have  a  little  modification  made  in 
its  apparel  is  not  a  symptom  of  dissolution  ;  it  is  not  a 
signal  to  the  mourners  to  beat  their  breasts  and  tear  their 
hair,  but  a  token  of  life,  a  summons  to  laughter  rather 
than  wailing,  meet  occasion  for  prophecy  more  than  for 
obituary. 

We  have  put  the  quotation  from  John's  epistle  at  the 
beginning  of  our  discussion  for  the  reason  that  there  are 
passages  in  our  Confession,  as  there  have  been  repeated 
statements  in  the  course  of  the  Revision  controversy,  that 
appear  to  indicate  not  only  that  men  have  been  ordained 
of  God  to  eternal  perdition,  but  that  they  have  been  or- 
dained for  the  simple  reason  that  He  chose  to  ordain  them. 
''Extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  He  pleaseth  "  is  the 
phrase  in  the  Confession  ;  admitting  some  to  the  benefits 
of  Christ's  atonement  because  He  chose  to  admit  them  ;  re- 
jecting others  from  the  benefits  of  the  same  atonement 
because  He  chose  to  reject  them,  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  potter  has  power  over  the  clay  to  make  an  honorable 
utensil  out  of  one  portion  of  the  clay  and  a  base  utensil 
out  of  another  portion,  not  because  there  is  any  difference 
in  the  clay,  but  because  he  happens  to  do  so. 

We  use   this    illustration  because  it   is   the   portion   of 


DIVINE    MERCY    MORALLY    OBLIGATORY.  95 

Scripture  used  as  proof-text  for  the  doctrine  under  con- 
sideration. It  is  another  way  of  asserting  the  pure  arbi- 
trariness of  the  principle  or  unprinciple  upon  which  He 
proceeds.  Now  if  a  man  acted  on  that  principle,  there  is 
not  one  among  us  but  would  pronounce  it  intolerable  and 
vicious.  For  a  despot  to  say  to  each  of  two  criminals,  in- 
dependently of  their  respective  characters,  to  one,  ''  I  re- 
prieve you,"  and  to  the  other,  "■  I  am  going  to  hang  you," 
would  be  tyranny  at  its  worst ;  and  no  man  educated  un- 
der civilized  government  would  be  able  to  conceive  of  it 
otherwise.  The  tyrant's  power  to  do  as  he  pleases  has 
nothing  to  do  with  his  right  to  do  as  he  pleases.  Power 
does  not  begin  to  be  righteousness  even  though  expanded 
to  the  limits  of  infinitude.  There  is  an  ineradicable  some- 
thing in  each  man's  own  bosom  that  insists  upon  this. 
There  are  within  us  certain  moral  instincts  that  are  as 
valuable  as  anything  that  the  Bible  can  teach  us  ;  in  fact, 
instincts  of  such  a  character  that  without  them  no  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible  would  be  of  any  value.  The  Bible  was 
made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Bible.  These  instincts  are 
older  than  the  Bible.  These  instincts  are  as  divine  as  the 
Bible  ;  as  much  God's  own  workmanship  as  the  Bible,  and 
the  meaning  of  the  Bible,  when  there  is  any  possible  ques- 
tion of  interpretation,  is  to  be  tested  by  them.  If  the 
general  consciousness  of  men  with  a  conscience  says  that 
it  is  tyranny  for  people  in  power  to  treat  their  subjects 
just  as  they  please,  then  they  have  got  to  feel  that  it 
would  be  tyranny  for  God  to  treat  His  subjects  just  as  He 
pleases.  If  you  try  to  make  the  same  conscience  talk  two 
ways  and  glorify  God  for  the  same  quality  of  act  that  you 
would  reprobate  if  done  humanly,  is  to  outrage  conscience 
and  make  it  eventually  incapable  either  of  religion  or  of 
ethics.  As  is  well  and  frankly  stated  by  Dr.  Hamilton, 
any  doctrine  that   shocks  the  religious    consciousness    is 


96  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

doomed.*  It  does  not  touch  nor  even  approach  to  the 
point  to  say  that  we  ought  to  beUeve  what  God  tells  us. 
If  it  is  a  thing  that  lacerates  our  moral  sense,  we  are  not 
going  to  believe  that  it  was  God  that  told  us.  We  believe 
that  God  does  right,  and  no  proofs  will  be  equal  to  the 
task  of  convincing  us  that  that  is  right  for  God  to  do 
which  we  would  reprobate  as  criminal  if  seen  in  each 
other.  To  persuade  a  man  that  his  conscience  is  no  cri- 
terion of  what  is  right  for  God  to  do,  is  a  long  step  towards 
convincing  him  that  it  is  of  no  great  account  as  an  index 
of  what  he  ought  to  do  himself.  If  divine  righteousness 
and  human  propriety  are  circles  described  from  distinct 
centres,  so  that  there  is  no  reading  backward  and  forward 
from  one  to  the  other,  there  is  an  instant  end  of  all  reve- 
lation. If  the  mere  fact  that  God  is  not  accountable  to 
any  one  makes  it  right  for  Him  to  do  what  it  is  wrong  for 
us  to  do,  then  irreligion  is  the  mode  of  religion  most  worthy 
of  us,  and  blasphemy  our  most  commendable  cultus. 

In  view  of  what  is  implied  in  our  Confession  of  Faith  as 
to  the  arbitrary  character  of  God's  dealing,  electing  some 
simply  because  He  chooses  to  elect  them,  rejecting  others 
simply  because  He  chooses  to  reject  them  —  in  view  of  all 
that,  we  appreciate  easily  the  remarkable  contribution  of 
the  truth  of  the  matter  made  by  our  selection  from  John  : 
'*If  we  confess  our  sins.  He  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive 
us  our  sins,"y//x/  to  forgive  us.  Arbitrariness  is  ruled  out. 
He  is  no  more  free  to  act  independently  of  consider- 
ations than  we  are.  He  does  not  forgive  because  there 
are  some  that  He  takes  a  fancy  to  forgive ;  He  forgives 
them  not  only  because  He  loves  to  do  so,  but  because 
there  would  be  an  injustice  in  His  not  doing  so.  God's 
justice  seems  in  some  quarters  to  be  so  thought  of,  as 


*Seep.  134. 


DIVINE    MERCY    MORALLY    OBLIGATORY.  9/ 

though  it  were  of  that  quality  according  to  which  God 
would  be  warranted  in  treating  every  man  exactly  as  he 
deserves.  It  is  not  always  just  to  treat  a  man  as  he  de- 
serves. Justice,  in  order  to  be  just,  has  sometimes  to  be 
forgiving  as  well  as  to  be  retributive.  Our  text  declares 
that.  Error  and  misunderstanding  have  crept  in  by  con- 
ceiving of  justice  and  mercy,  as  set  over  against  each 
other,  and  working  at  cross-purposes.  It  has  not  been 
conceived  that  both  attributes  can  be  present  in  congeni- 
ality and  plentitude  in  the  same  person  ;  and  that  is  one 
reason  why  the  personalities  of  the  first  and  second  mem- 
bers of  the  Trinity  have  been  forced  sufficiently  widely 
apart  to  allow  separate  embodiment  to  each  of  the  two  at- 
tributes. Instigated  by  the  demon  of  analysis,  we  sacrifice 
God  to  the  interests  of  our  theological  inquisition,  like  the 
botanist  who  ruins  his  flower  by  pulling  it  to  pieces  to  see 
to  what  species  it  belongs.  The  charm  of  this  verse  is 
that  it  conceives  and  represents  the  justice  and  mercy  of 
God  as  so  inseparable  and  so  contained  in  each  other,  that 
the  only  way  in  which  God  can  be  perfectly  just,  is  by 
being  merciful.  He  is  not  merciful  on  occasion,  simply 
because  he  chooses  to  be  so,  but  merciful  because  mercy 
alone  can  comport  with  the  requirements  of  His  own  Holy 
Being.  He  is  just  to  forgive.  His  compassion  is  holy, 
and  His  holiness  is  compassionate,  being  in  this  like  the 
sun  which  shines  with  no  capricious  or  one-sided  reful- 
gence, but  out  of  the  abundance  of  its  luminous  life  makes 
known  everywhere  the  power  of  its  splendid  presence  ; 
and  wherever  it  puts  its  touch  of  brightness,  also  leaves 
enfolded  within  it  a  genial  token  of  its  own  mellowness 
and  warmth. 


VI. 

THAT   TENTH    CHAPTER. 

BY    PROF.    CHARLES   A.    BRIGGS,    D.D. 

There  are  two  sections  of  the  tenth  chapter  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  that  are  the  centre  of 
contest  in  the  Revision  movement  that  is  now  agitating 
the  church.     These  sections  read  as  follows  :  — 

III.  "  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by 
Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he 
pleaseth.  So  also  are  all  other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being 
outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word." 

IV.  "  Others,  not  elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  min- 
istry of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations  of  the  Spirit, 
yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ,  and  therefore  cannot  be  saved : 
much  less  can  men,  not  professing  the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their 
lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion  they 
do  profess  ;  and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may  is  very  pernicious, 
and  to  be  detested." 

Some  find  in  these  sections  the  doctrine  that  all  the 
heathen  and  their  babes  are  doomed  to  everlasting  punish- 
ment. Others  think  that  they  may  believe  in  the  salvation 
of  some  of  the  heathen  who  have  never  heard  the  Gospel, 
and  in  the  universal  salvation  of  infants  dying  in  infancy, 
without  doing  violence  to  the  statements  of  the  Confession. 

It  is  important,  therefore,  to  determine  what  the  authors 
of  these  sections  of  the  Confession  designed  to  teach  when 
98 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  99 

they   framed    them  ;    and   what    has    been    the   history   of 
opinion  in  the  Presbyterian  churches  on  the  subject. 

In  the  seventeenth  century,  orthodox  theologians,  so  far 
as  I  have  been  able  to  determine,  were  unanimous  in  the 
opinion  that  the  heathen  and  their  infants  were  doomed  to 
everlasting  fire.  The  Baptists  pressed  the  doctrine  of  the 
salvation  of  their  unbaptized  children  as  the  children  of 
believers ;  but  they  did  not  teach  the  salvation  of  the 
heathen  and  their  babes.  It  was  first  the  Unitarians,  then 
the  Latitudinarians  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  finally 
the  so-called  Quakers,  or  Friends,  as  they  called  them- 
selves, who  are  entitled  to  the  credit  of  opening  up  the 
doctrine  of  the  universal  salvation  of  children  and  the 
partial  salvation  of  the  heathen.  This  was  made  possible 
by  the  great  stress  they  laid  upon  the  light  of  nature,  and 
''  the  light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the 
world  "  (John  i.  9). 

I.     CULVERWELL    AND    TUCKNEY. 

Nathaniel  Culverwell  published  his  book  entitled  ''Light 
of  Nature  "  in  1652,  in  which  he  advocated  the  salvation  of 
some  of  the  heathen.  He  was  immediately  attacked  by 
Anthony  Tuckney,  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  that 
framed  the  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism,  in  a  sermon 
at  Cambridge,  July  4,  1652.  This  was  published  in  1654, 
under  the  title  *'  None  but  Christ,"  with  an  appendix  dis- 
cussing the  salvation  of  ''(i)  Heathen;  (2)  Those  of  the 
Old  World ;  the  Jews  and  others  before  Christ,  and  (3) 
Such  as  die  infants  and  idiots,  etc.,  now  under  the  Gospel." 

This  is  Culverwell's  statement :  — 

"Yet  notwithstanding  their  censure  is  too  harsh  and  rigid,  who  as  if 
they  were  judges  of  eternal  life  and  death,  damne  Plato  and  Aristotle 
without  any  question,  without  any  delay  at  all ;  and  do  as  confidently 
pronounce   that  they  are  in   hell,  as  if  they  saw  them  flaming  there. 


lOO  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

Whereas  the  infinite  goodnesse  and  wisdome  of  God  might  for  ought 
we  know  finde  out  several  wayes  of  saving  such  by  the  Pleonasmes  of 
his  love  in  Jesus  Christ ;  he  inight  make  a  Socrates  a  branch  of  the  true 
vine,  and  might  graflfe  Plato  and  Aristotle  into  the  fruitful  olive ;  for 
it  was  in  his  power,  if  he  pleased,  to  reveal  Christ  unto  them,  and  to 
infuse  faith  into  them  after  an  extraordinary  manner ;  Though  indeed 
the  Scripture  does  not  afford  our  charity  any  sufficient  ground  to  believe 
that  he  did ;  nor  doth  it  warrant  us  peremptorily  to  conclude  the  con- 
trary. Secreta  Deo,  it  does  not  much  concerne  us  to  know  what  be- 
came of  them  ;  let  us  then  forbear  our  censure,  and  leave  them  to  their 
competent  Judge.  .  .  .  Yet  I  am  farre  from  the  minde  of  those  Pat- 
rons of  Universal  Grace,  that  make  all  men  in  an  equal  propinquity 
to  salvation,  whether  Jews,  or  Pagans,  or  Christians  ;  which  is  nothing 
but  dight  and  guilded  Pelagiamsme,  whilest  it  makes  grace  as  extensive 
and  Catholick,  a  principle  of  as  full  latitude  as  nature  is,  and  resolves 
all  the  difference  into  created  powers  and  faculties.  This  makes  the 
barren  places  of  the  world  in  as  good  a  condition  as  the  Garden  of  God, 
as  the  inclosure  of  the  Church :  It  puts  a  Philosopher  in  as  good  an 
estate  as  an  Apostle  ;  For  if  the  remediimi  salutiferum  be  equally  ap- 
plied to  all  by  God  himself,  and  happinesse  depends  only  upon  mens 
regulating  and  composing  of  their  faculties ;  how  then  comes  a  Chris- 
tian to  be  neerer  to  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  than  an  Indian?  is  there  no 
advantage  by  the  light  of  the  Gospel  shining  among  men  with  healing 
under  its  wings  ?  Surely,  though  the  free  grace  of  God  may  possibly 
pick  and  choose  an  Heathen  sometimes,  yet  certainly  he  does  there 
more  frequently  pour  his  goodnesse  into  the  soul  where  he  lets  it 
streame  out  more  clearly  and  conspicuously  in  external  manifestations. 
'Tis  an  evident  signe  that  God  intends  more  salvation  there,  where  he 
affords  more  means  of  salvation ;  if  then  God  do  choose  and  call  an 
Heathen,  His  not  by  universal,  but  by  distinguishing  grace."  —  Light  of 
Nature^  by  Nathanael  Culverwell,  London,  1652,  pp.  208-210. 

The  essential  points  of  the  reply  of  Tuckney  are  given 
in  the  following  extracts  :  — 

"I.  It  cannot  rationally  be  said,  that  there  was  an  equall  invin- 
cibility of  ignorance  in  those  Heathens,  to  that  which  is  in  Infants  and 
distracted persojis,  which  want  the  use  of  reason,  which  they  had  ;  and 
therefore  might  have  made  more  use  of  it  then  they  did ;  and  therefore 
their  sin  was  more  wilful,  and  so  made  them  more  obnoxious  to  Gods 
wrath,  which  therefore  these  Infants,  etc.,  as  less  guilty,  may  in  reason 
better  escape. 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  lOI 

"2.  How  God  worketh  in,  or  dealeth  with  elect  Infants  which  dye 
in  their  infancy  (for  any  thing  tliat  I  have  found)  the  Scripture  speaks 
not  so  much,  or  so  evidently,  as  for  me  (or  it  may  be  for  any)  to  make 
any  clear  or  firm  determination  of  it.  But  yet  so  much  as  that  we  have 
thence  ground  to  believe,  that  they  being  in  the  Covenant,  they  have 
the  benefit  of  it.  Acts  iii.  25  ;  Gen.  xvii.  7. 

"Whether  God  may  not  work  and  act  faith  in  them  then,  (as  he 
made  JoJm  Baptist  leap  in  the  womb)  which  Beza,  and  others  of  our 
Divines  deny,  and  others  are  not  unwilling  to  grant,  I  dare  not  peremp- 
torily determine.  Yet  this  I  may  say,  that  he  acteth  in  the  souls  of 
Behevers  in  articulo  mortis,  when  some  of  them  are  as  little  able  to 
put  forth  an  act  of  reason,  as  they  were  in  articulo  nativitatis.  But 
the  Scripture  (for  any  thing  that  I  know)  speaks  not  of  this  and  there- 
fore I  forbear  to  speak  any  thing  of  it. 

"  Only  (as  I  said)  it  giveth  us  ground  to  believe,  that  they  being  in 
the  Covenant  may  be  so  wrapt  up  in  it,  as  also  to  be  wrapt  up  in  the 
bundle  of  life,  and  did  it  give  us  but  as  good  hopes  of  the  Heathens 
(of  whom  it  rather  speaks  very  sadly)  as  it  doth  of  such  Infants,  I 
should  be  as  forward  as  any  to  perswade  my  self  and  others,  that  they 
were  in  a  hopeful  condition. 

*'  For  such  infants,  suppose  they  have  not  actual  faith,  so  as  to  exert 
it,  yet  they  may  have  it  infused  in  the  habit,  they  are  born  in  the  Church, 
and  in  the  Covenant,  and  what  the  faith  of  the  Church,  and  of  their 
believi7ig  parents  may  avail  them,  I  do  not  now  particularly  inquire 
into  !  .  .  .  And  whereas  mention  was  made  of  an  anticipatitig  and 
preventing  grace  of  God,  by  which  withoiit  faith  he  might  be  saved ; 
I  conceive  and  believe  that  it  is  abundant  anticipating  aftd  preventing 
grace,  when  either  in  hifn  or  in  any,  God  beginneth  and  worketh  faith 
to  lay  hold  on  Christ.  But  such  a  preventing  grace  as  to  accept  us  for 
Christ  sake  without  faith  in  Christ,  the  Scripture  mentioneth  not,  is  a 
new  notion  oi  3.  young  Divine,  which  without  better  proof  must  not  com- 
mand our  belief,  or  impose  upon  our  credulity."  —  None  but  Christ,  by 
Anthony  Tuckney,  1654,  pp.  134-37. 

Tuckney  represents  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  divines 
that  constituted  the  Westminster  Assembly  in  this  rejec- 
tion of  the  heathen  and  their  infants  from  the  benefits  of 
redemption.  The  children  of  believers  were  the  children 
of  the  Covenant,  and  were  therefore  entitled  to  baptism  as 
the  heirs  of  the  orrace  of  God.     But  the  children  of  the 


I02  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

heathen  were  with  their  parents  outside  the  bonds  of  the 
Covenant  and  altogether  beyond  the  realm  of  grace.  Even 
within  the  bonds  of  the  Covenant  the  election  of  grace  must 
prevail,  and  therefore  it  was  not  certain  how  many  of  the 
infants  of  believers  belonged  to  the  elect.  Dr.  Krauth  has 
shown  by  a  large  number  of  citations  that  this  was  the 
opinion  of  the  Calvinistic  divines  of  the  continent  of  Europe 
with  Calvin  at  their  head.* 

It  will  suffice  to  cite  his  extracts  from  the  Geneva  pastors, 
Calvin,  and  Rivetus. 

"  The  whole  body  of  Genevan  pastors,  fifteen  in  number,  with  Calvin 
heading  the  list,  charge  upon  Servetus,  as  one  of  his  errors  —  the  errors 
which  cost  him  his  life  —  that  he  asserts  that  '  he  dare  condemn  none 
of  the  (infant)  offspring  of  Ninevites  or  Barbarians  to  hell  {futurum 
gehennavi)  because,  in  his  opinion,  a  merciful  Lord,  who  hath  freely 
taken  away  the  sins  of  the  godless,  would  never  so  severely  condemn 
those  by  whom  no  godless  act  has  been  committed,  and  who  are  most 
innocent  images  of  God,'  and  further  he  infers  that  '  all  who  are  taken 
from  life  as  infants  and  children  are  exempt  from  eternal  death,  though 
they  be  elsewhere  called  accursed.' "  -^  Refiitatio  Errorum  Michaelis 
Serveti,  Opera,  Brunsvigae,  viii.  619,  642.! 

"  Calvin  wrote  with  great  bitterness  against  Castalio,  who  had  been 
his  friend,  but  who  speedily  showed  the  working  of  the  tendencies  which 
matured  at  a  later  period  into  Arminianism. 

"  '  You  deny  that  it  is  lawful  for  God,  except  for  misdeed,  to  condemn 
any  human  being.  Nevertheless  numberless  infants  are  removed  from 
life.     Put  forth  now  your  virulence  against  God,  who  precipitates  into 


*  "  Infant  Baptism  and   Infant  Salvation   in  the  Calvinistic  System."     1874. 
See  also  Van  Dyke's  "  God  and  Little  Children,"  New  York,  1890. 

t  Krauth's  "  Infant  Baptism  and  Infant  Salvation,"  p.  52.  In  this  connection  it 
is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Westminster  divines  make  no  citation  whatever  from  the 
book  of  Jonah  in  the  proof-texts  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  If  they  and  the  Re- 
formed divines  of  the  continent  had  reflected  upon  the  passage  in  Jonah  refeiTcd 
to  in  this  charge,  they  might  have  attained  a  higher  apprehension  of  the  grace  of 
God  in  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  and  their  babes.  When  God  said  to  Jonah, 
"  Should  not  I  have  pity  on  Nineveh,  that  great  city,  wherein  are  more  than  six 
score  thousand  persons  that  cannot  discern  between  their  right  hand  and  their  left 
hand;  and  also  much  cattle"  (iv.  11),  he  spake  a  word  that  annihilates  the  state- 
ments of  the  Westminster  divines  in  Sections  III.  and  IW  of  that  Tenth  Chapter. 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  IO3 

eternal  death  harmless  new-born  children  (Jniioxios  foetus')  torn  from 
their  mothers'  bosoms.  .  .  .  Your  masters,  Servetus,  Pighius,  and  such 
like  dogs  {^similes  canes),  say  at  least  that  before  the  world  was  created 
some  were  condemned  whom  God  foreknew  worthy  of  destruction.  But 
you  will  not  concede  that  he  devotes  to  eternal  death  any  except  those 
who  for  perpetrated  evil  deeds  would  be  exposed  to  penalty  under  earthly 
judges.  .  .  .  You  do  not  hesitate  to  overturn  the  whole  order  of  divine 
justice.'"  —  De  Occulta  Dei  Providetitia,  Opera,  Brunsvigae,  ix.  312.* 

Rivet,  one  of  the  most  eminent  Reformed  divines  of  his 
day,  says  :  — 

"  Calvin  says  thatof  those  who  have  rested  on  the  breasts  of  the  same 
Christian  mother  some  are  borne  to  heaven,  others  thrust  down  to  hell, 
without  respect  to  their  having  or  failing  to  have  Baptism :  to  wit,  by 
virtue  of  that  decree,  by  which  God  hath  decreed,  not  by  permitting 
only,  but  also  by  walling,  that  Adam  should  necessarily  fall,  and  that  so 
many  nations,  with  their  infant  children,  should  through  that  fall  be 
brought  to  eternal  death  without  remedy.  When  Calvin  himself  calls 
this  decree  '  fearful '  {hornbile),  he  gives  it  too  soft  a  name  (jnhms  qua?/i 
res  est  dLrit)^  —  Apologet.  Discuss.,  Opera,  iv.  684.! 

I  have  recently  given  extracts  from  leading  Westminster 
divines,  showing  that  they  held  the  same  views,$  and  I 
have  repeatedly  challenged  any  one  to  produce  a  West- 
minster divine  who  held  the  contrary  opinion.  I  am  quite 
sure  that  none  such  can  be  found.  I  shall  give  a  few  brief 
extracts,  referring  to  my  book  for  fuller  information  on  this 
subject. 

William  Twisse,  the  prolocutor,  or  moderator  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  says,  "  If  many  thousands,  even 
all  the  infants  of  Turkes  and  Sarazens  dying  in  originall 
sinne,  are  tormented  by  him  in  hell  fire,  is  he  to  be  ac- 
counted the  father  of  cruelties  for  this  .'^  "  §    Cornelius  Bur- 

*  Krauth,  I.e.  p.  52.  I  give  Krauth's  translations,  but  I  have  verified  them,  and 
they  are  sufficiently  accurate.  I  have  also  changed  the  references  to  the  Brunswick 
edition  of  Calvin's  works.  f  Krauth,  I.e.  p.  69. 

+  "  Whither,"  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  pp.  121  seq. 

\  "  Riches  of  God's  Love,"  1653,  p.  135. 


I04  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

gess,  the  assessor,  or  vice-moderator,  wrote  a  book  in  1629 
entitled,  ''  Baptismal  Regeneration  of  Elect  Infants y  The 
Westminster  Confession  passed  through  his  hands  in  its 
final  transcription.  There  can  be  no  doubt  what  he  meant 
by  "  elect  infants."  The  title  of  his  book  makes  that  evident 
without  citation  from  his  book  itself.  Stephen  Marshall, 
the  most  influential  preacher  in  the  Assembly,  says  :  — 

"  That  God  hath  made  a  promise  to  be  the  God  of  Believers,  and  of 
their  Seed,  we  all  know ;  but  where  the  promise  is  to  be  found,  that  he 
will  be  the  God  of  the  seed  of  such  parents  as  live  and  die  his  enemies, 
and  their  seed,  not  so  much  as  called  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel, 
I  know  not. 

"  These  men  say  the  Covenant  of  Grace  made  to  the  Jews  differs 
from  the  Covenant  made  with  jis ;  but  I  desire  to  know  whether  in  the 
one,  or  in  the  ot/ier,  they  find  any  promise  of  Salvation  by  Christ  to  any 
Infants  dying  in  their  Infancy,  whose  parents  no  way  belonged  to  the 
Family  of  God,  or  Covenant  of  Grace,"  —  Sermon  of  the  Baptizing  of 
Infants,  by  Stephen  Marshall,  1645,  P-  7- 

Robert  Baylie  and  Samuel  Rutherford,  the  Scottish  com- 
missioners to  the  Westminster  Assembly,  Antony  Burgess 
and  William  Carter,  among  others,  expressly  taught  the 
damnation  of  the  heathen  and  their  babes.  No  one  has 
ever  been  able  to  point  to  a  single  Westminster  divine 
who  did  not  teach  that  doctrine. 

I  shall  conclude  this  section  of  the  history  by  a  citation 
from  Baxter,  the  most  generous-minded  Presbyterian  of 
his  age.  Baxter  tells  us  of  his  discussions  respecting  in- 
fant baptism,  and  reviewing  them,  says :  — 

"  But  after  these  writings  I  was  greatly  in  doubt  [whether  it  be  not 
certain  that  all  the  infants  of  true  believers  are  justified  and  saved  if 
they  dye  before  actual  sin].  My  reason  was,  because,  it  is  the  same 
justifying  saving  covenant  of  grace  which  their  parents  and  they  are 
in.  And  as  x^iS.  faith  and  repentance  is  that  condition  on  the  parents 
part  which  giveth  them  their  right  to  actual  remission,  and  adoption : 
so  to  be  the  children  of  such,  is  all  the  condition  which  is  required  in 
infants  in  order  to  the  same   benefits:    And   without   asserting   this 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  IO5 

the  advantage  of  the  Anabaptists  is  greater  than  every  one  doth  imagine. 
But  I  never  thought  with  Dr.  Ward  that  all  baptized  children  had  this 
benefit,  and  qualitative  sanctification  also ;  nor  with  Dr.  Burgess  and 
Mr.  Bedford,  that  all  converted  at  age,  had  inherent  seminal  grace  in 
Baptism  certainly  given  them  ;  nor  with  Bishop  Davenant,  that  all  justly 
baptized  had  relative  grace  ^/justification  and  adoption.  But  only  that 
all  the  infants  of  true  believers  who  have  right  to  the  covenant  and 
baptism  in  foro  cceli  as  well  as  /;/  foro  ecclesicE,  have  also  thereby  right 
to  the  pardon  of  original  sin,  and  to  Adoption,  and  to  Heaven ;  which 
right  is  by  Baptism  to  be  sealed  and  deUvered  to  them.  This  I  wrote 
of  to  Mr.  Gataker  who  returned  me  a  kind  and  candid  answer,  but 
such  as  did  not  remove  my  scruple  ;  and  this  occasioned  him  to  print 
Bishop  Davenanf  s  Disputations  with  his  answer.  My  opinion  (which 
I  most  incline  to)  is  the  same  which  the  Synod  of  Dort  expresseth,  and 
that  which  I  conjecture  Mr.  Davenant  meant,  or  I  am  sure  came  next 
to  it."  —  ReliquicB  Baxteriaticz,  London,  1696,  p.  109. 

This  correspondence  between  Baxter  and  Gataker  I  pub- 
lished in  the  Presbyterian  Review^  in  1884.* 

From  Gataker' s  letter  I  shall  only  cite  his  reply  to  an 
objection  of  Baxter  that  gives  his  views  in  the  matter  be- 
fore us.  Baxter  raises  the  objection,  "But  a  parent  then 
can  have  no  more  comfort  from  anie  promise  of  God  con- 
cerning his  child  dying  than  an  infidel."  To  this  Gataker 
responds  :  ''  It  followeth  not.  God  hath  made  in  Scripture 
manie  promises  of  blessing  the  seed  of  the  faithful  for 
their  parents  sake,  and  of  his  loving  affection  to  them 
for  their  godlie  progenitors,  which  yet  how  far  forth  and 
in  what  manner  he  may  please  and  shall  see  good  to  ex- 
press and  make  good  unto  the  issue  of  such,  we  must,  for 
ought  I  see,  leave  to  his  gracious  pleasure  without  per- 
emptory determination  of  ought  therein." 

These  extracts  ought  to  make  it  clear  that  the  West- 
minster divines  meant  to  teach  that  there  were  elect  in- 
fants and  elect  idiots  from  among  the  children  of  beUevers, 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  v.  pp.  700  seq. 


I06  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

but  that  there  was  no  salvation  for  the  heathen  and  their 
babes.  They  could  not  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  all  the 
children  of  believers,  dying  in  infancy  or  living  as  idiots, 
would  be  saved  even  if  they  had  received  the  sacrament 
of  baptism. 

n.      GEORGE    KEITH    AND    THE    BOSTON    MINISTERS. 

The  Quakers  had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  spreading 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  and  their 
babes.     Thus  William  Penn  says  :  — 

"That  though  God  was  more  beneficent  to  the  Jew  (especially  to 
the  Christian)  than  the  Gentile,  and  consequently  that  as  the  Jew  had 
those  assistances  the  Gentile  had  not,  so  the  Christian  Dispensation  is 
the  Perfection  of  the  Divine  Light,  Life,  and  Immortality,  more  weakly 
seen  by  Jew  and  Gentile ;  yet  also,  that  God  did  communicate  to  the 
Gentiles  such  a  measure  of  his  divine  Light  and  Spirit,  as  diligently 
adhered  to,  and  faithfully  followed,  was  sufficient  to  their  salvation,  from 
sin  here,  and  consequently  from  wrath  to  come :  And  that  they  them- 
selves did  so  believe,  teach,  live,  and  dye,  in  perfect  hope  and  full 
assurance  of  eternal  recompence,  in  a  state  of  Immortality." — The 
Christian  Quaker,  1674,  I.  p.  85. 

The  views  of  the  Quakers  as  to  the  redemption  of  the 
heathen  and  their  babes  came  into  conflict  with  the  Pres- 
byterian and  Congregational  orthodoxy  in  a  controversy 
between  George  Keith  and  the  Boston  ministers  in  1689 
and  1690.  Ge(5rge  Keith  was  first  brought  up  for  the  Pres- 
byterian ministry  in  Scotland,  then,  about  1664,  adopted 
the  views  of  the  Friends  and  was  imprisoned  for  his  faith. 
He  labored  in  America  as  a  Friend  from  168 5-1 690.  He 
was  the  father  of  schism  of  the  Friends,  called  Keithites, 
or  Christian  Quakers,  He  afterwards  united  with  the 
Church  of  England,  and  became  one  of  the  chief  instru- 
ments in  founding  the  Episcopal  Church  in  America. 
While  still  a  Friend  he  entered  into  controversy  with  the 
Presbyterians  of  Maryland  and  Virginia  and  with  the  Con- 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  10/ 

gregationalists  of  New  England.  His  chief  controversial 
work  was  published  at  Philadelphia,  in  1689,  entitled  "The 
Presbyterian  and  Independent  Visible  Churches  in  New 
England  and  Elsewhere  brought  to  the  Test."  This  was 
answered  by  the  Boston  ministers  in  a  book  entitled  "  The 
Principles  of  the  Protestant  Religion  maintained,  and 
Churches  of  New  England  in  the  Profession  and  Exercise 
thereof  defended,  against  the  Calumnies  of  one  George 
Keith,  a  Quaker,  in  a  Book  lately  published  at  Pensylvania, 
to  undermine  them  both,"  Boston,  1690. 

This  book  was  signed  by  James  Allen,  Joshua  Moody, 
Samuel  Willard,  and  Cotton  Mather.*  This  controversy 
brings  into  prominence  several  questions  now  in  hot  debate 
in  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  churches.  It  is 
a  mirror  that  will  reveal  to  the  disputants  on  which  side 
they  now  stand,  whether  with  the  Quakers  of  1689,  or  the 
orthodox  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  platform  as 
stated  by  the  Boston  members  in  1690. 

I .    The  salvation  of  i7ifants. 

Keith,  addressing  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
churches,  says  :  — 

'^  Where  now  shall  these  men  find  any  place  in  Scripture  to  prove 
that  there  are  any  reprobate  infants  ?  or  that  any  infants  dying  in  in- 
fancy go  to  Hell  and  perish  eternally,  only  for  Adam's  sin,  although 
that  sin  was  forgiven  to  Adam,  and  thousands  more  equally  guilty,  by 
their  own  confession  ? "  —  p.  84. 

The  Boston  ministers  reply  :  — 

*'  Here  we  are  challenged  to  prove  that  there  are  reprobate  infants, 
or  such  as  go  to  hell  for  Adam's  sin  only,  to  which  we  reply :   i .  He 


*  These  were  all  men  of  fame,  the  most  eminent  American  ministers  of  their 
time.  Samuel  Willard  was  pastor  of  the  South  Church,  Boston,  and  vice-principal 
of  Harvard  College,  the  author  of  the  most  important  American  work  on  Dogmatic 
Theology  up  to  his  date.     His  "  Body  of  Divinity  "  was  published  in  1726. 


I08  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

himself  grants  (p.  88)  that  men  generally  (and  why  not  universally?) 
are  children  of  wrath  by  nature ;  and  he  will  not  deny  but  that  by 
nature  is  intended  that  natural  condition  they  were  born  into  the  world 
in  (and  then  it  must  needs  concern  infants  as  well  as  others),  and  this 
too  is  by  Adam's  sin  transferred  upon  them,  and  his  corrupt  image 
communicated  to  them.  2.  That  hence  children  in  their  natural  birth 
are  under  a  sentence  of  condemnation  to  dye,  is  a  necessary  conse- 
quence. 3.  That  God  hath  nowhere  revealed  to  us  that  he  hath 
accepted  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  for  all  that  dy  in  their  infancy; 
and  where  there  is  no  revelation,  there  is  no  ground  for  faith.  4.  That 
there  is  merit  enough  for  damnation  in  them,  else  it  would  be  unjust 
that  they  should  be  under  condemnation.  5.  That  this  sentence  hath 
been  actually  executed  upon  some  infants  (Rom.  v.  14),  they  never 
sinned  actually,  and  yet  they  died,  and  it  was  the  same  death  spoken 
of  ver.  12.  If  therefore  the  text  which  some  of  ours  use,  i  Cor.  vii. 
14,  should  not  prove  it,  it  follows  not  that  no  other  can :  and  yet 
we  suppose  there  is  thus  much  in  that  too,  viz.,  that  till  parents  do 
openly  profess  the  gospel  and  submit  to  it,  as  long  as  they  abide  in 
their  gentilism,  their  children  were  also  unclean,  and  so  apparently 
lying  under  guilt  and  lyable  to  eternal  death.  And  then  he  chargeth 
some  of  our  church  covenant,  for  glorying  that  none  of  their  children 
were  reprobates  while  infants  ;  we  declare  it  to  be  a  slander :  we  never 
affixed  election  to  a  visible  relation  to  the  Church  of  Christ.''  —  pp.  78  seq. 

These  four  representative  ministers,  the  most  eminent 
in  America  at  this  time,  endeavor  to  prove  that  the  chil- 
dren of  unbelievers  that  die  in  infancy  are  sent  to  hell. 
They  accept  the  challenge  of  the  Quaker  to  produce 
Scriptural  evidence,  and  they  strive  to  present  such  evi- 
dence. It  is  still  more  significant  that  they  are  unwilling 
to  take  the  position  that  all  children  of  believers  who  die 
in  infancy  are  saved.  They  charge  Keith  with  slandering 
them  in  his  statement  that  they  gloried  that  none  of  their 
children  were  reprobates.  They  assert  that  they  never 
affixed  election  to  a  visible  relation  to  the  church  of 
Christ.  They  held  that  God  elects  some  of  the  children 
of  believers  as  He  elects  some  of  the  hearers  of  the  Gospel ; 
they  held  to  elect  infants  of  believers,  as  Burgess  taught 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  IO9 

the  baptismal  regeneration  of  elect  infants,  and  held  that 
the  non-elect  were  not  regenerated  even  if  they  had  been 
baptized ;  they  held  with  the  Westminster  Confession  that 
"  elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved 
by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and 
where,  and  how  he  pleaseth  "  (x.  3).*  The  Boston  minis- 
ters in  this  argument  represented  the  unanimous  opinion 
of  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  churches  of  their 
time.  No  one  has  ever  produced  a  Congregational  or 
Presbyterian  minister  of  that  period  who  did  not  believe 
in  the  damnation  of  infants. 

The  significance  of  this  discussion  is,  that  Keith  chal- 
lenges the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  churches  on 
this  point,  and  that  the  Boston  ministers  here  reply  in  the 
name  of  orthodox  Protestantism,  and  claim  that  only  the 
elect  infants  of  believers  who  are  in  the  Covenant  are 
saved,  and  that  all  others,  dying  in  infancy,  are  lost  in 
hell.  Keith  stood  well-nigh  alonC  in  1689.  The  Boston 
ministers  would  find  themselves  alone  if  they  could  come 
forth  into  our  times. 

2.    The  salvation  of  the  heathen. 

Keith  also  endeavors  to  prove  the  salvation  of  some  of 
the  heathen  :  — 

"  But  if  these  men  who  own  that  said  Confession  of  Faith  [the 
Westminster  Confession]  enquire,  whether  all  those  honest  Gentiles 
that  lived  in  the  world,  or  do  now  live  in  the  world,  who  have  not  had 
Christ  crucified  outwardly  preached  unto  them,  but  were  diligent  to 
frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  that  was  in  them,  died  in  a  state 
of  salvation  ?  I  say,  yea,  they  did ;  and  this  I  may  the  rather  say, 
according  to  their  own  doctrine.  For  what  if  they  had  not  the  perfect 
knowledge  and  faith  of  Christ  crucified,  when  they  lived?  Yet  they 
might  have  it  at  their  death ;  to  wit,  in  the  passing  through  the  valley 
of  the  shadow  of  death,  according  to  Ps.  xxiii.  21."  —  p.  114. 


*  See  pp.  98, 104. 


no  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE/ 

The  Boston  ministers  reply  :  — 

"  That  there  are  any  elect  among  pagans,  who  never  had  the  gospel 
offered  them,  is  not  only  without  Scripture  warrant,  but  against  its 
testimony  as  hath  been  agen  and  agen  made  evident."  —  p.  92. 

Keith  stands  over  against  the  Presbyterian  and  Congre- 
gational churches  in  maintaining  that  God  had  His  elect 
among  the  heathen.  The  Boston  members  claim  that  it 
has  been  shown  again  and  again  that  there  are  no  elect 
among  pagans.  Modern  Presbyterians  have  gone  over  to 
Keith's  position.     The  Boston  ministers  further  say:  — 

"What  he  saith  (p.  86)  that  all  have  an  opportunity  or  possibility 
to  be  converted  and  become  the  children  of -God  is  ambiguous.  If  the 
word  'possibility'  be  exegetical  of  the  former;  viz.,  opportunity,  it  is 
nonsense,  for  these  two  are  Dispartes :  if  he  intends  them  disjunctively, 
we  deny  not  a  possibility,  for  all  men  are  salvable  ;  but  for  an  opportu- 
nity we  renounce  that,  for  where  the  means  of  salvation  are  not,  there 
is  no  opportunity.  But  what  is  all  this  to  the  purpose  ?  or  what  doth  it 
make  against  the  reprobation  of  infants.''  —  p.  80. 

Here  the  Boston  ministers  clearly  teach  that  the  heathen 
and  their  infants  are  all  reprobates.  They  have  had  no 
opportunity  of  salvation,  and  therefore  cannot  be  saved. 
The  modern  church  goes  with  Keith  against  the  church 
of  the  seventeenth  century. 

3.    The  extent  of  the  atonement, 
Keith  says  :  — 

"  Now  this  is  plainly  revealed  and  declared  in  the  Scriptures,  that 
the  condemnation  is  not  simply  that  Adam  sinned,  or  his  posterity  in, 
and  with  him,  but  that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  love  dark- 
ness more  than  this  light :  And  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  to  wit,  the 
first  Adam,  judgment  is  come  upon  all  to  condemnation ;  even  so  by 
the  righteousness  of  one,  to  wit,  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  the  free  gift 
is  come  upon  all  to  justification  of  life.  And  though  men,  generally 
are  by  nature,  children  of  wrath  (if  it  should  be  granted  or  allowed, 
that  by  nature,  signifieth  their  natural  condition  as  they  are  born  into 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  Ill 

the  world)  yet  by  the  great  mercy,  grace  and  favour  of  God ;  they  all 
have  an  opportunity  or  possibility  to  be  converted  and  become  the  chil- 
dren of  God.''  —  p.  85.  , 

"And  therefore  none  shall  finally  perish,  or  be  lost,  for  that  first 
sin,  according  to  Scripture,  but  for  their  actual  disobedience  here  in 
this  world,  and  their  final  unbelief  and  impenitency.  For  as  concerning 
the  judgment  and  punishment  of  the  first  sin,  it  was  immediately  in- 
flicted after  the  fall,  to  wit,  the  death  of  all  in  Adam.  But  Christ,  the 
second  Adam,  by  his  death,  for  all  that  died  in  Adam,  doth  freely  give 
unto  all  his  free  gift,  that  cometh  upon  all  unto  justification  of  Life ; 
and  thus  the  plaster  is  as  broad  as  the  sore,  and  the  medicine  as  uni- 
versal as  the  disease ;  and  it  is  not  simply  the  sin  or  disease,  but  the 
refusing  and  rejecting  the  medicine  and  physic  that  is  the  cause  of  mans 
final  destruction."  —  p.  89. 

Such  language  was  rare  in  the  seventeenth  century,  but 
it  is  familiar  to  us  in  these  days. 

To  this  the  Boston  members  reply  :  — 

*'  The  case  stands  plainly  thus.  In  the  first  covenant  we  stand  con- 
demned for  the  breach  of  the  law,  either  as  Adams  sin  is  ours  by  im- 
putation, or  as  we  have  actually  broken  the  law.  Where  the  gospel 
comes,  Christ  is  offered,  a  way  is  discovered  to  life  by  Him.  Now  this 
is  the  proper  gospel  condemnation  that  men  despise  him  and  will  not 
follow  this  light ;  and  this  is  added  to  the  former :  they  were  before 
condemned  by  the  law,  and  now  the  gospel  condemns  them  to."  —  p.  80. 

"  But  the  knack  is,  they  died  in  Adam,  and  Christ  by  his  death  for 
all  that  died  in  Adam  hath  discharged  all  of  that  imputation,  which  is 
a  perfectly  Arminian  principle,  and  hath  bin  enough  confuted  by  all 
that  have  written  against  them.  That  therefore  he  concludes  that  none 
do  suffer  final  destriictio7i  but  for  rejecting  the  physicia7i,  makes  the 
condition  of  pagans  better  than  that  of  Christians,  for  these  are  certain 
to  escape  destruction,  being  incapable  of  rejecting  the  physician  who 
is  never  offered  to  them,  whereas  millions  of  those  reject  him  and 
perish  for  it.  The  gospel  then  opens  a  door  to  mans  undoing,  which 
else  he  had  been  out  of  danger  of,  if  Christ  had  but  died  for  us  and 
never  told  us  of  it."  —  p.  82. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  Boston  ministers 
not  only  reject  the  view  of  Keith,  which  is  a  favorite  view 
at  present,  as  a  perfectly  Arminian  principle,  but  they  also 


112  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

show  that  it  makes  the  condition  of  the  heathen  safer  than 
the  condition  of  men  living  in  Christian  lands  ;  an  argu- 
ment which  is  equally  valid  against  the  universal  salvation 
of  dying  infants,  for  that  makes  the  condition  of  infants 
dying  in  infancy  safer  than  that  of  infants  who  grow  up 
to  childhood  and  manhood. 


in.       PROFESSOR    SIMSON    AND    HIS    TIMES. 

The  controversy  between  Keith  and  the  Boston  minis- 
ters shows  us  what  was  the  state  of  the  question  and  what 
was  the  orthodox  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  doc- 
trine at  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century.  In  the  eigh- 
teenth century  there  was  a  great  change  in  the  theological 
world.  After  the  Revolution  had  given  liberty  to  the  Non- 
conformists in  England,  had  established  the  Presbyterian 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  had  secured  religious  liberty  in  the 
American  Colonies,  it  soon  became  manifest  that  there 
were  Latitudinarian  elements  in  Presbyterian  and  Congre- 
gational circles  as  well  as  among  Episcopalians  and  Quak- 
ers. The  debate  over  the  Light  of  Nature,  and  the  office 
of  the  human  reason  in  the  Christian  Religion,  the  extent 
of  the  Atonement,  the  right  of  the  subscription  to  creeds, 
and  other  like  questions,  went  on  in  Presbyterian  and 
Congregational  circles,  and  it  was  not  long  before  great 
changes  took  place.  It  would  be  interesting  to  trace  these 
changes,  but  we  have  not  the  space  at  present.  It  will  be 
sufficient  for  our  purpose  if  we  use  the  case  of  Professor 
Simson  of  Glasgow  as  a  landmark.  Professor  Simson  was 
a  leading  representative  of  the  Broadchurchmen  of  Scot- 
land. He  was  charged  with  heresy,  and  his  case  was  before 
the  ecclesiastical  courts  for  many  years.  In  1 717  he  was 
warned  by  the  General  Assembly.  In  1725-26  he  was 
again  under  trial  and  was  partially  sacrificed  for  the  peace 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  II3 

of  the  church.     Some  of  the  charges  against  him  were  his 
views  as  to  the  heathen  and  infants,  as  follows  :  — 

*'  That  by  the  light  of  nature,  and  works  of  creation  and  Providence, 
including  Tradition,  God  hath  given  an  obscure,  objective  revelation 
unto  all  men,  of  his  being  reconcilable  to  sinners,  and  that  the  heathen 
may  know  there  is  a  remedy  for  sin  provided,  which  may  be  called  an 
implicit  or  obscure  revelation  of  the  Gospel :  that  it  is  probable  ;  that 
none  are  excluded  from  the  benefits  of  the  remedy  for  sin,  provided  by 
God,  and  published  twice  to  the  world,  except  those,  who  by  their 
actual  sin,  exclude  themselves,  and  slight  or  reject,  either  the  clearer 
light  of  the  Gospel,  revealed  to  the  church,  or  that  obscure  discovery 
and  offer  of  grace  made  to  all  without  the  church.  That  if  the  heathen, 
in  the  use  of  the  means  they  have,  would  seek  the  knowledge  of  the 
way  of  reconciliation,  God  would  discover  it  to  them.  That  there  are 
means  appointed  by  God  for  obtaining  saving  grace,  which  means,  when 
dilligently  used  with  seriousness,  sincerity  and  faith  of  being  heard, 
God  hath  promised  to  bless  with  success ;  and  that  the  going  about 
these  means  in  the  foresaid  manner,  is  not  above  the  reach  of  our  nat- 
ural ability  and  power.  .  .  .  That  it  is  more  than  probable  that  all 
unbaptized  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  saved  ;  and  that  it  is  manifest, 
if  God  should  deny  his  grace  to  all,  or  any  of  the  children  of  infidels, 
he  would  deal  more  severely  with  them  than  he  did  with  fallen  angels." 
—  Continuation  of  the  Secofid  Edition  of  the  Case  of  Mr.  John  Sims  on  ^ 
Professor  of  Divinity  iji  the  University  of  Glasgow.  Edinburgh,  1728. 
See  Briggs's  "American  Presbyterianism."     Appendix  xxv.] 

Thomas  Ridgley  in  his  "  Body  of  Divinity,"  consisting  of 
lectures  on  the  Westminster  Larger  Catechism,  pubUshed 
in  1731-33,  taught  the  damnation  of  infants  and  the  heathen. 
He  was  unwilling  to  go  so  far  as  to  teach  the  certainty 
of  the  salvation  of  the  infants  of  believers  that  died  in 
infancy.  He  tries,  however,  to  mitigate  the  sufferings  of 
lost  infants. 

"The  condemnation  of  infants,  who  have  no  other  guilt  but  that 
of  original  sin,  will  be  more  tolerable  than  that  of  the  heathen,  inasmuch 
as  they  had  no  natural  capacities  of  doing  good  or  evil.'''  —  Philadelphia 
edition,  1815,  p.  141. 


114  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

Isaac  Watts,  in  1740,  in  his  ''Ruin  .and  Recovery  of 
Mankind,"  argued  against  the  universal  salvation  of  in- 
fants, and  taught  that  the  infants  of  the  wicked  are 
annihilated.* 

Dr.  Toplady,  a  Calvinistic  divine  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, later  in  the  century  makes  a  very  decided  advance  : 

"  If  Christ  died  only  for  them  that  believe,  or  in  whom  faith  is 
wrought,  it  follows  that  faith  is  an  exceeding  great  and  precious  gift.''^ 

In  a  note  he  adds  :  — 

"No  objection  can  hence  arise  against  the  salvation  of  such  as  die 
in  infancy  (all  of  whom  are  undoubtedly  saved)  ;  nor  yet  against  the 
salvation  of  God's  elect  among  the  heathens,  Mahomedans,  and  others. 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  able  to  inspire  the  grace  of  virtual  faith  into  those 
hearts  (especially  at  the  moment  of  dissolution)  which  are  incapable  of 
exerting  the  explicit  act  of  faith." — Works,  London,  1794,  i.  p.  298. 

But  the  prevailing  view  in  Presbyterian  circles  through- 
out the  century  was  that  the  children  of  the  wicked,  dying 
in  infancy,  were  lost.  This  is  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Ander- 
son of  Glasgow  in  his  essay  introductory  to  Logan's  "Words 
of  Comfort  for  Parents  bereaved  of  Little  Children."  He 
testifies  that  in  the  first  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century 
"  it  was  with  hesitancy  and  bated  breath,  and  amid  suspi- 
cions of  their  soundness  in  the  faith,  that  a  few  voices 
were  heard,  suggesting  the  possibility  that  all  who  die  in 
infancy  are  saved."  In  the  second  decade  of  the  centur\' 
''  there  were  found  a  few,  lifting  up  their  voices  in  protest 
and  advocacy  that  it  was  not  only  possible  h\xt  probable  that 
all  who  died  in  infancy,  having  been  guilty  of  no  actual 
sin,  no  rejection  of  Him  who  was  appointed  the  world's 
Redeemer,  were  saved."!     He  then  goes  on  to  speak  of 


*  Works,  London,  1753,  PP-  309  st^q- 

t  pp.  xx.-xxiv.     See  Dr.  Prentiss  in  Presbyterian  Review,  iv.  560,  561. 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  II5 

a  later  date  when  some  proclaimed  the  certainty  of  the 
salvation  of  all  dying  in  infancy,  and  were  met  by  the 
censure  that  they  were  wise  above  what  is  written. 

IV.      DICKINSON    AND    HIS    LARGER    HOPE. 

In  the  American  colonies  Presbyterians  and  Congrega- 
tionalists  were  divided  into  the  old  side  and  the  new  side. 
These  divisions,  however,  were  more  on  practical  questions 
than  on  doctrinal  issues.  The  question  of  subscription  to 
creeds,  regeneration,  and  religious  experience  were,  how- 
ever, in  hot  dispute  ;  and  churches  were  divided  by  the 
controversies.  The  leader  of  the  new  side  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church  was  Jonathan  Dickinson,  pastor  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  at  Elizabethtown,  N.J.,  and  the  first 
president  of  the  College  of  New  Jersey.  In  1741  he 
published  his  '*  True  Scripture  Doctrine  concerning  Some 
Important  Points  of  Christian  Faith,"  discussing  the  five 
points  of  Calvinism,  according  to  the  Synod  of  Dort,  in 
five  discourses. 

In  these  discourses  there  are  some  important  modifica- 
tions of  the  Calvinism  of  Dort  and  Westminster.  They 
give  us  another  landmark  by  which  to  test  Presbyterian 
doctrine.  Dickinson  open^  up  the  doctrine  of  infant 
salvation :  — 

"  It  may  be  further  urged  against  this  proposition,  '  That  it  dooms 
multitudes  of  poor  infants  to  hell,  who  never  committed  any  actual  sin, 
and  is  therefore  a  doctrine  so  cruel  and  ummerciful  as  to  be  unworthy 
of  God.'  To  this  I  answer,  That  greatest  modesty  becomes  us  in 
drawing  any  conclusions  on  this  subject.  We  have  indeed  the  highest 
encouragement  to  dedicate  our  children  to  Christ,  since  he  has  told  us, 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  the  strongest  reason  for  hope 
as  to  the  happiness  of  those  deceased  infants,  who  have  been  thus 
dedicated  to  him.  But  God  has  not  been  pleased  to  reveal  to  us,  how  far 
he  will  extend  his  uncovenanted  mercy,  to  others  that  die  in  infancy.  — 
As,  on  the  one  hand,  I  do  not  know  that  the  scripture  anywhere  assures 


I  l6  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

US,  that  they  shall  all  be  saved ;  So,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  not 
(that  I  know  of),  any  evidence,  from  scripture  or  the  nature  of  things, 
that  any  of  these  will  eternally  perish.  — All  those  that  die  in  infancy, 
may  (for  ought  we  know),  belong  to  the  election  of  Grace,  and  be  pre- 
destinated to  the  adoption  of  children.  They  may,  in  methods  to  us 
unknown,  have  the  benefits  of  Christ's  redemption  applied  to  them  ;  and 
thereby  be  made  heirs  of  eternal  glory.  They  are  (it  is  true),  naturally 
under  the  guilt  and  pollution  of  original  sin :  But  they  may,  notwith- 
standing this,  for  anything  that  appears  to  the  contrary,  be  renewed  by 
the  gracious  influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  thereby  be  made  meet 
for  eternal  life.  It  therefore  concerns  us,  without  any  bold  and  pre- 
sumptuous conclusions,  to  leave  them  in  the  hands  of  that  God,  whose 
tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works.''''  —  Origi?ial  Sin,  by  Jonathan 
Dickinson,  A.M.,  Boston,  1741,  pp.  205,  206. 

In  this  passage  Jonathan  Dickinson  departs  from  the 
older  Calvinism  by  teaching  that  God  has  His  elect  even 
beyond  the  circle  of  the  children  of  believers.  He  is  not 
able  to  assert  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  will  be 
saved.  But  he  is  unwilling  to  say,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
any  of  those  dying  in  infancy  are  lost.  He  claims  that  the 
Scriptures  do  not  decide,  and  he  leaves  them  in  the  hands 
of  that  God  "  whose  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works.'' 

The  theory  by  which  Dickinson  is  able  to  look  for  the 
salvation  of  infants  is  a  very  singular  one.  It  finds  ex- 
pression in  another  passage  of  his  works. 

In  1748  a  posthumous  work  appeared,  entitled  the 
''  Second  Vindication  of  God's  Sovereign  Free  Grace." 
Herein  Dickinson,  in  replying  to  his  adversary,  Mr.  Beach, 
says :  — 

"Yet  it  is  certainly  true  if  God  never  designed  and  will  therefore 
never  permit  any  but  what  are  of  the  elect  to  die  in  infancy.  If  so  (and 
it  may  be  so  for  aught  I  know)  then  all  that  die  in  infancy  will  un- 
doubtedly be  saved,  without  any  prejudice  to  the  doctrine  of  per- 
severance."—  p.  41. 

In  the  former  passage  he  said  :  "■  All  those  that  die  in 
infancy,  may  (for  ought  we  know)  belong  to  the  election  of 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  II/ 

grace."  Here  he  puts  it  in  another  form,  and  thinks  that 
it  may  be,  for  aught  he  knows,  that  God  will  not  permit 
any  but  what  are  of  the  elect  to  die  in  infancy.  Dickinson 
could  hold  this  theory  because  of  the  emphasis  that  he  laid 
upon  the  doctrine  of  Regeneration.  Regeneration  to  him 
takes  the  place  of  the  Effectual  Calling  of  the  Westminster 
divines.  And  this  he  separates  from  Baptism  in  a  way  that 
would  have  shocked  Burgess  and  many  other  Westminster 
divines,  who  believed  in  the  baptismal  regeneration  of 
elect  infants. 

He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  separate  regeneration  from 
the  Word  of  God  in  a  way  that  the  Westminster  divines 
would  have  regarded  as  dangerous.  It  is  this  stress  upon 
the  doctrine  of  Regeneration,  as  an  act  of  divine  efficiency, 
that  enabled  him  to  conceive  of  the  regeneration  of  infants 
apart  from  the  means  of  grace  and  the  covenant  of  grace. 

It  is  clear  from  these  passages  that  Dickinson  does  not 
go  so  far  as  Simson.  He  thinks  that  the  salvation  of 
infants  beyond  the  bounds  of  Christian  privileges  is  pos- 
sible ;  there  are  no  arguments  against  it,  but  he  is  not 
ready  to  assert  it  as  a  fact.  He  does  not  go  so  far  as  this 
in  his  view  of  the  heathen  world.  He  says  in  reply  to 
Mr.  Beach  :  — 

"  And  therefore  you  must  produce  some  other  evidence  than  such 
reasoning  as  this,  to  make  it  credible,  that  all  the  Hottentots  in  the  Bay 
oi  Soldoma  (who  know  nothing  of  either  doctrinal  or  practical  religion, 
nor  so  much  as  believe  the  Being  of  a  God),  with  more  such  like  bar- 
barous savages,  have  all  of  th^va  grace  sufficient  for  their  eternal  sal- 
vation.''—  Second  Vindication^  p.  8i. 

He  argues  in  the  strongest  terms  that  the  race  had  its 
one  probation  in  Adam. 

"  It  has  been  universally  received  by  the  Protestant  churches,  that 
Adam  was  appointed  by  God  in  the  great  instance  of  his  probation,  to 
stand  or  fall  for  his  Posterity,  as  well  as  himself:  That  had  he  stood, 


Il8  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

they  had  stood  in  him :  But  he  having  fallen,  they  have  fallen  in  him, 
and  his  guilt  and  corruption  descend  to  all  his  natural  posterity.  There 
is  a  Harmony  of  their  Confessions  on  this  Head,  as  I  think  might  be 
easily  made  to  appear,  nor  is  there  one  Exception  that  I  know  of."  — 
Second  Vmdicatioji^  p.  69. 

Jonathan  Dickinson  represents  the  broader  Calvinism  of 
the  American  Presbyterian  Church.  It  would  be  difificult 
to  find  many  others  at  that  time  who  were  so  generous  in 
their  Calvinism  as  he. 

Jonathan  Edwards  is  much  narrower.  In  1758  his 
treatise  on  *'  Original  Sin "  was  published,  in  which  he 
takes  ground  for  the  damnation  of  infants,  in  very  plain 
language.*  Nathanael  Emmons  also  held  to  the  theory 
of  the  damnation  of  non-elect  infants.      He  says : 

"  From  all  the  light  we  can  find  in  Scripture  on  this  subject,  it  seems 
to  be  the  most  probable  opinion  that  He  renews  only  some  of  those 
who  die  soon  after  they  become  morally  depraved  and  guilty."  —  Works, 
vol.  iv.,  1842,  pp.  510,  511. 

He  seems  to  think  that  if  any  died  before  that  time,  they 
were  annihilated.  The  younger  f  Edwards  would  not  admit 
that  there  were  any  elect  among  the  heathen. 

These  theologians  represent  the  theology  of  the  Pres- 
byterian and  Congregational  churches  of  the  eighteenth 
century  in  America.  I  have  never  seen  an  extract  from 
an  American  Calvinistic  divine  of  that  century  who  believed 
in  the  salvation  of  any  of  the  heathen,  or  would  go  any 
further  than  Jonathan  Dickinson  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
salvation  of  infants. 

V.     THE    NEW    DOCTRINES. 

With  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  theology 
in   America  began   to   move   rapidly  forwards,   and   great 


♦  Works,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  494,  495.  f  Works,  vol.  ii.,  1842,  p.  465. 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  I  I9 

conflicts  were  the  result  during  the  first  half  of  the  cen- 
tury between  the  Old  School,  so  called,  and  the  New 
School.  But  beneath  these  discussions  still  greater  move- 
ments were  taking  place  that  are  now  showing  themselves. 
The  intercourse  and  debates  between  the  several  denomi- 
nations had  great  influence  in  modifying  the  Calvinism  of 
the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  churches. 

The  divines  of  the  early  decades  of  the  century  were 
cautious  in  their  statements,  but  in  the  third  decade  the 
ministry  took  bolder  positions.  One  of  the  earliest  state- 
ments relating  to  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  and  infants 
was  by  Dr.  James  P.  Wilson  of  Philadelphia,  in  1827.  He 
takes  the  following  position  with  reference  to  infants  dying 
in  infancy :  — 

•'  Since  indisposition  to  holiness  is  a  universal  character  of  our 
nature  ;  and  infants  inherit  disease  and  death,  the  wages  of  sin;  there 
must  exist  some  connection  between  us  and  our  first  parent,  whereby 
we  are  justly  introduced,  into  the  world,  in  his  image  and  lapsed  state, 
without  our  choice.  This  doctrine  is  plainly  asserted  in  the  fifth  chap- 
ter of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  elsewhere  ;  nevertheless  it  does 
not  follow  that  any  dying  in  infancy  are  lost ;  since  their  salvation  by 
Christ  is  more  than  possible."  —  An  Essay  on  the  Probatio7i  of  Fallen 
Men,  Philadelphia,  1827,  p.  14. 

Dr.  Wilson  also  says  with  reference  to  the  salvation  of 
the  heathen  :  — 

''  How  far  therefore  the  abominations  of  the  heathen 
can  be  excused  in  their  dark  and  hopeless  alienation,  God 
alone  must  decide ;  nor  does  it  become  us,  without  divine 
warrant,  to  say  they  can  have  no  mercy  in  Christ."  —  p.  74. 
In  a  note  on  this  statement  he  says  :  — 

"  When  a  presbytery  are  of  opinion  that  the  Scriptures  have  not 
asserted  the  doctrine  of  the  unceremonious  damnation  of  the  heathen  ; 
they  ought  to  allow  this  exception  when  required,  either  at  licensure 
or  ordination.  The  difficulty  lies  in  the  answer  to  question  60  of  the 
Larger  Catechism.     The  correct  answer  to  be  presented  to  it,  must  be 


120  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

in  the  negative,  for  it  is  certainly  true,  that  no  obedience  of  ours  to  any 
law  can  save  us.  The  assembly's  answer  in  denying  salvation  to  be 
in  any  other,  but  Christ,  is  also  true.  But  so  far  as  it  does,  though 
indirectly,  affirm,  that  faith  is  required  of  those  who  never  have  heard 
the  evidence,  it  is  neither  supported  by  the  Scriptures,  nor  by  reason." 
—  pp.   lOI,   102. 

"The  greater  portion  of  mankind  have  not  yet  had  the  offer  of 
Christ,  but  they  pass  through  their  state  of  trial,  and  are  to  be  judged. 
Must  they  be  all  swept  off  to  perdition,  for  not  believing  that,  which,  it 
has  been  impossible  for  them  to  believe  ?  Neither  revelation  nor  reason, 
unless  we  are  greatly  mistaken,  affirms  this."  —  p.  io6. 

Here  Dr.  Wilson  takes  exception  to  the  statement  of 
the  Larger  Catechism,  in  terms  that  anticipate  the  discus- 
sions of  recent  times. 

Dr.  Lyman  Beecher,  in  1828,  in  the  '^Spirit  of  the  Pil- 
grims," wrote  a  series  of  articles,  to  show  that  the  future 
punishment  of  infants  was  not  a  doctrine  of  Calvinism. 
He  evidently  did  not  know  of  the  writings  of  his  pred- 
ecessors in  Boston  in  1690,  or  of  the  writings  of  the 
Westminster  divines  on  this  subject.  His  article  is  simply 
a  landmark,  showing  that  it  had  now  become  the  well-nigh 
universal  belief  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  were  saved. 

Dr.  Archibald  Alexander  also  seems  to  have  held  this 
same  opinion  at  about  the  same  time.  But  the  earliest 
published  testimony  of  it,  so  far  as  we  know,  is  in  his  letter 
to  Bishop  Mead,  in  which  he  says  :  — 

"  As  infants,  according  to  the  creed  of  all  reformed  churches,  are 
infected  with  original  sin,  they  cannot,  without  regeneration,  be  quali- 
fied for  the  happiness  of  heaven.  Children  dying  in  infancy,  must 
therefore  be  regenerated  without  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word ;  and 
as  the  Holy  Scriptures  have  not  informed  us  that  any  of  the  human 
family  departing  in  infancy  will  be  lost,  we  are  permitted  to  hope  that 
all  such  will  be  saved."  —  Life  of  Archibald  Alexander  (1854),  p.  584. 

Dr.  Alexander  here  advances  beyond  Dickinson  and 
Wilson,  and  teaches  new  doctrine  that  reverses  the  posi- 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  121 

tion  of  the  Boston  ministers  of  1690.  Dickinson  thought 
that  the  Scriptures  left  the  question  undetermined  whether 
God  would  regenerate  all  dying  in  infancy  or  not.  It 
might  be  that  he  would  not  permit  any  but  the  elect  to 
die  in  infancy.  Alexander  hopes  that  infants  are  saved 
because  "  the  Holy  Scriptures  have  not  informed  us  that 
any  of  the  human  family  dying  in  infancy  will  be  lost." 
The  Boston  ministers,  on  the  other  hand,  held  "  that  God 
hath  nowhere  revealed  to  us  that  he  hath  accepted  the 
satisfaction  of  Christ  for  all  that  die  in  infancy,  and  where 
there  is  no  revelation  there  is  no  ground  for  faith."  The 
old  Puritans  demanded  Scriptural  authority  for  an  article 
of  faith,  but  Dr.  Alexander  follows  his  hopes  and  his  rea- 
son where  the  Scriptures  are  not  in  his  way.  This  shows 
a  total  change  of  attitude. 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  takes  a  longer  step  in  advance.  He 
says  :  — 

"  If  without  personal  participation  in  the  sin  of  Adam,  all  men  are 
subject  to  death,  may  we  not  hope  that,  without  personal  acceptance  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  all  who  die  in  infancy  are  saved?" —  Corn- 
vie  Jitary  on  Romans  (1864),  p.  298. 

This  again  reverses  the  argument  of  the  Boston  minis- 
ters, who  say  that  infants  ''  in  their  natural  birth  are  under 
a  sentence  of  condemnation  to  dye,"  because  of  Adam's 
sin  transferred  upon  them  and  his  corruption  communicated 
to  them,  and  that,  "till  their  parents  do  openly  profess 
the  gospel  and  submit  to  it,  as  long  as  they  abide  in  their 
gentilism,  their  children  were  also  unclean,  and  so  appar- 
ently lying  under  guilt  and  liable  to  eternal  death."  It  is 
just  their  participation  in  Adam's  sin  that  involves  them 
in  eternal  punishment.  And  it  is  only  by  their  personal 
participation  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  through  their 
believing  parents,  that  they  can  be  saved.  This  was  the 
older  Calvinism.     It  is  a  new  Calvinism  that  teaches  that 


122  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

there  is  either  subjection  to  death  without  personal  par- 
ticipation in  Adam's  sin,  or  salvation  without  personal  par- 
ticipation in  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  Dr.  Hodge's 
new  Calvinism  as  set  forth  in  this  and  in  other  kindred 
statements,  as  Dr.  Landis  has  clearly  shown,  subverts  the 
Reformed  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  and  the  Protestant 
doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith.* 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  in  another  passage  expressly  exempts 
infants  from  the  exercise  of  faith. 

"  Faith  is  the  condition  of  justification.  That  is,  so  far  as  adults  are 
concerned,  God  does  not  impute  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  the  sin- 
ner, until  and  unless,  he  (through  grace)  receives  and  rests  on  Christ 
alone  for  salvation.''  —  Systematic  Theology,  iii.  p.  ii8. 

This  new  doctrine  reaches  its  climax  in  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge, 
who  teaches  that  ''in  the  justification,  therefore,  of  that 
majority  of  the  elect  which  die  in  infancy,  personal  faith 
does  not  mediate."!  And  thus  we  have  the  doctrine  of 
the  universal  salvation  of  infants  elaborated  at  the  expense 
of  the  vital  principle  of  justification  by  faith  only,  and  the 
Augustinian  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

VL     EXPLAINING    AWAY    THE    CONFESSION. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  various  ways  in  which  recent 
divines  endeavor  to  explain  away  the  historical  meaning  of 
the  Tenth  Chapter. 

I.    Dr.  Shedd  says  :  — 

"  The  declaration  in  Confession  X.  4,  and  Larger  Catechism,  60, 
does  not  refer  at  all  to  the  heathen  as  such,  but  only  to  a  certain  class 
of  persons  to  be  found  both  in  Christendom  and  heathendom,  and 
probably  more  frequently  in  the  latter  than  in  the  former.  .   .   . 

"  That  this  is  the  correct  understanding  of  the  Westminster  Stand- 


*  Landis,  "  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin  "  (1884),  pp.  12  seq.,  254  seq. 
t  Princeton  Review  (1878),  p.  315. 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  123 

ards  is  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  the  Calvinism  of  the  time  held  that 
God  has  His  elect  among  the  heathen.  The  second  Helvetic  Confes- 
sion (I.  7)  teaches  it.  Zanchius,  whose  treatise  on  'Predestination' 
is  of  the  strictest  type,  asserts  it.  Witsius  and  others  suggest  that  the 
grace  of  God  in  election  is  wide  and  far-reaching.  The  elder  Calvin- 
ists  held  with  the  strictest  rigor  that  no  man  is  saved  outside  of  the 
circle  of  election  and  regeneration,  but  they  did  not  make  that  circle 
to  be  the  small,  narrow,  insignificant  circumference  which  their  oppo- 
nents charge  upon  them.  And  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the 
Westminster  Assembly  differed  from  the  Calvinism  of  the  time."  — 
The  Proposed  Revision,  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  pp.  64,  65. 

This  statement  contains  two  incorrect  premises,  and 
therefore  a  false  conclusion.  The  Second  Helvetic  Con- 
fession teaches  the  common  Calvinistic  doctrine  that  the 
grace  of  God  is  free  and  is  not  confined  to  external  means. 
Dr.  Shedd  infers  from  this  statement  that  this  Confession 
teaches  that  there  are  elect  heathen.  But  this  inference 
is  not  justified  by  the  language  of  this  Confession  or  the 
history  of  opinion  at  the  time  the  Confession  was  composed. 
Dr.  Shedd  makes  an  inference  from  the  Confession  that  is 
invalid,  and  then  argues  from  his  invalid  inference  as  if  it 
were  the  statement  of  the  Confession.  Dr.  Shedd  does 
not  give  us  the  statement  from  Zanchius,  and  we  may  be 
permitted  to  conjecture  that  in  this  case  also  Dr.  Shedd 
has  made  an  inference  from  Zanchius'  statements  that  is 
contrary  to  his  real  views.  So  far  as  our  reading  of  the 
reformed  divines  goes,  we  have  not  found  the  slightest 
evidence  for  Dr.  Shedd's  assertion.  The  second  assump- 
tion of  Dr.  Shedd  in  this  extract  is,  that  ''there  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  the  Westminster  Assembly  differed  from 
the  Calvinism  of  the  time."  This  may  seem  plausible  to 
those  who  have  not  studied  the  Westminster  divines.  But 
in  fact,  the  Calvinism  of  Great  Britain  had  its  own  native 
type  and  development.  It  was  a  misfortune  when  British 
and  American  Calvinists  turned  away  from  their  own  an- 


124  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

cestral  theology  to  build  upon  Swiss  and  Dutch  scholasti- 
cism. We  have  given  extracts  from  British  and  American 
Presbyterians  to  show  what  they  meant  by  the  statements 
of  the  Confession,  and  these  show  that  Dr.  Shedd's  specu- 
lations as  to  their  meaning  are  even  more  unjustifiable  than 
his  inference  from  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession.  There 
is  not  the  slightest  evidence  that  the  continental  divines  or 
the  British  divines  of  the  Reformed  churches  in  the  seven- 
teenth century  had  any  room  in  their  theology  for  elect 
heathen. 

2.  Dr.  Shedd  presents  the  following  interpretation  of 
the  Westminster  statement :  — 

"  We  contend  that  the  Confession  so  understands  the  Scriptures,  in 
its  declaration  that  there  are  some  '  elect  persons  [other  than  infants] 
who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
Word.'  To  refer  the  '  incapacity '  here  spoken  of  to  that  of  idiots  and 
insane  persons,  is  an  example  of  the  unnatural  exegesis  of  the  standards 
to  which  we  have  alluded.  The  hypotheses  that  the  Confession 
teaches  that  there  are  elect  and  non-elect  idiots,  and  elect  and  non- 
elect  maniacs,  is  remarkable.  It  is  incredible  for  two  reasons.  First, 
idiots  and  maniacs  are  not  moral  agents,  and  therefore  as  such  are 
neither  damnable  nor  salvable.  They  would  be  required  to  be  made 
rational  and  sane,  before  they  could  be  classed  with  the  rest  of  mankind. 
It  is  utterly  improbable  that  the  Assembly  took  into  account  this  very 
small  number  of  individuals,  respecting  whose  destiny  so  little  is  known. 
It  would  be  like  taking  into  account  abortions  and  untimely  births. 
Secondly,  these  '  elect  persons  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word,'  are  contrasted  in  the  immediate 
context  with  '  others  not  elected,  who  although  they  may  be  called  by 
the  ministry  of  the  Word,  never  truly  come  to  Christ ' ;  that  is  to  say, 
they  are  contrasted  with  rational  and  sane  adults  in  evangelized  regions. 
But  idiots  and  maniacs  could  not  be  put  into  such  a  contrast.  The 
'  incapacity '  therefore  must  be  that  of  circumstances,  not  of  mental 
faculty.  A  man  in  the  heart  of  unevangelized  Africa  is  incapable  of 
hearing  the  written  Word,  in  the  sense  that  a  man  in  New  York  is 
incapable  of  hearing  the  roar  of  London." —  The  Proposed  Revision  of 
the  Westmitister  Standards,  p.  26. 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  125 

It  is  very  strange  doctrine  that  *' idiots  and  maniacs  are 
not  moral  agents,  and  therefore  as  such  neither  damnable 
nor  salvable."  It  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  extract  from 
Tuckney,*  given  above,  where  he  speaks  of  infants  and 
distracted  persons  which  want  the  use  of  reason,  and  con- 
trasts such  elect  ones  with  the  heathen.  These  few  words 
of  Tuckney,  who  had  so  much  to  do  with  the  construction 
of  the  Confession,  are  worth  a  thousand  pages  of  the- 
orizing and  speculation  as  to  what  the  Westminster 
divines  must  have  thought  and  must  have  designed  to  say. 
The  Westminster  divines  did  not  agree  with  Dr.  Shedd 
that  abortions  and  untimely  births  should  not  be  taken 
into  account  in  the  work  of  redemption.  No  system  of 
theology  is  worth  a  straw  that  does  not  take  into  account 
such  babes,  who  are  born  into  the  world  not  to  perish  for- 
ever in  hell  fire,  but  to  be  redeemed  by  Jesus  Christ,  and 
to  have  an  inheritance  in  an  eternal  life  with  Christ  and 
God. 

3.  Dr.  Shedd  endeavors  to  prove  that  the  Westminster 
divines  meant  that  infants  dying  in  infancy  were  elected 
as  a  class  :  — 

"  We  have  already  seen  that  iht  proposed  omission  of  preterition,  so 
as  to  leave  only  election  in  the  case  of  adults,  would  make  their  election 
universal,  and  save  the  whole  class  without  exception.  The  actual 
omission  of  it  by  the  Assembly  in  the  case  of  dying  infants  has  the 
same  effect.  It  is  morally  certain  that  if  the  Assembly  had  intended  to 
descriminate  between  elect  and  non-elect  infants,  as  they  do  between 
elect  and  non-elect  adults,  they  would  have  taken  pains  to  do  so,  and 
would  have  inserted  a  corresponding  clause  concerning  infant  preter- 
ition to  indicate  it." — The  Proposed  Revision  of  the  IVest/ninster 
Standards,  p.  67. 

Here  again  the  major  premise  is  at  fault.  Dr.  Shedd 
has  not  shown  that  "the  proposed  omission  of  preterition 


*  See  pp.  100,  loi. 


126  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

SO  as  to  leave  only  election  in  the  case  of  adults,  would 
make  their  election  universal,  and  save  the  whole  class 
without  exception."  He  admits  that  the  XXXIX.  Articles, 
the  First  Helvetic  Confession,  and  the  Heidleberg  Cate- 
chism do  not  specify  preterition,  but  only  imply  it  in  their 
specification  of  election.  The  omission  of  preterition  in 
these  creeds  does  not  make  election  universal,  and  if  it 
does  not  in  these  creeds,  the  omission  will  not  make  elec- 
tion universal  in  the  Westminster  Confession.  Election 
is,  and  must  be,  particular  and  individual.  Classical  elec- 
tion is  now,  and  ever  has  been,  an  Arminian  doctrine, 
whether  we  think  of  classes  of  babes  or  classes  of  adults. 
It  is  true  there  is  no  specification  of  the  preterition  of 
infants  dying  in  infancy.  But  this  no  more  implies  their 
election  as  a  class,  than  the  omission  of  the  preterition 
of  adults  in  the  XXXIX.  Articles  implies  the  election 
of  adults  as  a  class.  The  divine  election  is  an  election  of 
individuals  in  both  cases,  according  to  the  conception  of 
the  old  Calvinists  and  the  Westminster  divines.  And  it 
is  just  this  elaboration  of  the  election  of  individuals,  and 
preterition  of  individuals,  that  makes  some  of  the  state- 
ments of  the  third  chapter  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession so  distasteful  to  men  of  our  times.  It  is  a  hard 
doctrine,  and  it  is  roughly  expressed  in  the  words,  ''  Their 
number  is  so  certain  and  definite  that  it  cannot  be  either 
increased  or  diminished"  (iii.  4).  Such  language  is  not 
suited  to  the  classical  election  of  infants  dying  in  infancy, 
making  up  a  very  large  portion  of  the  human  race. 
4.    Dr.  Shedd  further  says  :  — 

"  All  men  are  blessed  with  common  grace."  *  "  Special  grace  supposes 
the  failure  of  common  grace."  f  "  There  is  not  a  transgressor  on  earth, 
in  Christendom,  or  Heathendom,  who  is  not  treated  by  his  Maker 
better  thati  he  deserves ;    who  does    not   experience   some   degree   of 


*"The  Proposed   Revision,"  p.  43.  t /.^.,  p.  45. 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  12/ 

the  divine  love  and  compassion."*  "It  is  divine  mercy  and  love  for 
human  souls,  notwithstanding  its  ill  success."  f  "Millions  of  men  in 
all  ages  are  continually  beating  back  God^s  mercy  in  the  outward  call 
and  nullifying  it."  |  "  Scripture  denies  that  God  is  under  obligation  to 
follow   up   his   defeated   common   grace   with   his   irresistible    special 


These  are  doctrines  that  are  pleasing  to  Calvinists  in  our 
times,  but  they  are  not  the  doctrines  of  the  Westminster 
Confession.  They  are  not  the  doctrines  of  the  West- 
minster divines  or  of  the  dogmatic  divines  of  the  Pres- 
byterian churches  in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth 
centuries.  They  are  more  like  the  doctrines  of  Culverwell, 
Keith,  and  Simson  given  above,  than  the  doctrines  of  their 
opponents.  "  Defeated  common  grace,"  "  Beating  back 
God's  mercy,"  ''  Failure  of  common  grace,"  may  be  sound 
doctrine,  more  in  accordance  with  the  Scripture  than  that 
taught  by  the  Westminster  divines,  but  it  is  not  the  lan- 
guage of  the  orthodoxy  of  the  seventeenth  or  eighteenth 
centuries.  Jonathan  Dickinson  was  the  leader  of  liberal 
Presbyterians  in  his  times,  and  yet  he  says  :  — 

"The  question  here  between  you  and  me  is  this:  Whether  God 
has  universally  and  indifferently  given  to  all  men  grace  sufficient  for 
their  eternal  salvation ;  or  whether  we  can  obtain  eternal  life  by  virtue 
of  our  improvement  of  those  acts  of  divine  grace  which  are  given  to 
mankind  in  general,  at  least  under  the  Gospel,  without  special  and  dis- 
tinguishing influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  This  you  hold  in  the 
affirmative  ;  I  in  the  fiegative.^'' — Second  Vindication,  1748,  p.  71. 

Dr.  Shedd  seems  to  side  with  Beach,  over  against  Dick- 
inson, when  he  says  "■  Common  grace  is  great  and  unde- 
served mercy  to  a  sinner,  and  would  save  him,  if  he  did 
not  resist  and  frustrate  it."  ||  It  is  interesting  to  observe 
that  the  passages   of    Scripture  chiefly  relied  on  by  Dr. 


I.e.,  p.  47.  t  I.C.,  p.  48.  t  ^•<^-.  p-  so-  §  ^-^M  P-  49- 

"  The  Proposed  Revision,"  p.  48. 


128  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

Shedd  to  prove  his  doctrine  were  not  used  at  all  among 
the  proof-texts  of  the  Westminster  Confession.  These 
are  — 

"Despises!  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness,  and  forbearance,  and 
long  suftering,  not  knowing  that  the  goodness  of  God  leads  thee  to 
repentance"  (Rom.  ii.  4). 

"  And  yet  he  left  not  himself  without  witness  in  that  he  did  good, 
and  gave  you  from  heaven  rains  and  fruitful  seasons,  filling  your  hearts 
with  food  and  gladness"  (Acts  xiv.  17).  "That  they  should  seek 
God,  if  happy  they  might  feel  after  him,  and  find  him,  though  he  is 
not  far  from  each  one  of  us  "  (Acts  xvii.  27). 

Dr.  Shedd  touchingly  refers  to  the  repentance  of  the 
prodigal,  all  unconscious  of  the  fact  that  the  Westminster 
divines  make  no  citation  from  the  Parable  of  the  Prodigal 
in  the  proof-texts  of  our  Confession,  or,  indeed,  from  any 
of  the  similar  parables,  such  as  the  Lost  Sheep,  the  Lost 
Coin,  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  the  Good  Samaritan, 
the  Importunate  Widow.  All  this  class  of  passages  was 
overlooked  by  the  Westminster  divines.  In  so  far  as  Dr. 
Shedd  uses  them,  his  system  is  a  more  Scriptural  system 
of  theology  than  that  contained  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession. 

5.    President  Patton  tells  us  that  — 

"  The  Confession  teaches  that  only  the  elect  will  be  saved ;  that  those 
of  the  elect  who  are  capable  of  faith  are  saved  by  faith ;  that  those  of 
the  elect,  such  as  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,  who  are  incapable 
of  faith,  are  saved  without  faith.  The  antithesis  is  not  between  elect 
and  non-elect  infants,  but  between  elect  infants  that  die  in  infancy  and 
elect  infants  that  do  not  die  in  infancy."  —  Revision  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  p.  7. 

This  is  remarking  exegesis.  The  Confession  nowhere 
teaches  that  there  is  salvation  without  faith  to  those  inca- 
pable of  faith.  No  sound  Calvinist  ever  taught  such  doc- 
trine.    It  subverts  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith 


THAT    TENTH    CHAPTER.  1 29 

only.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Antinomians  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  that  was  expressly  repudiated  again  and 
again  by  the  Westminster  divines  in  many  passages  of 
their  works  and  in  the  Confession  itself,  which  says, 
**  Nevertheless  they  are  not  justified  until  the  Holy  Spirit 
doth,  in  due  time,  actually  apply  Christ  unto  them"  (xi.  4). 

There  is  nothing  in  the  context  of  the  Tenth  Chapter  to 
suggest  that  there  is  an  antithesis  between  elect  infants 
dying  in  infancy  and  elect  infants  that  do  not  die  in 
infancy.  All  this  is  pure  speculation  without  any  basis 
in  the  argument  of  the  Confession  itself.  But  even  if  there 
were  such  an  antithesis,  the  implication  would  still  be 
that  as  there  are  elect  infants  who  do  not  die  in  infancy, 
and  non-elect  infants  who  do  not  die  in  infancy,  so  the 
same  two  classes  of  elect  and  non-elect  are  found  among 
those  infants  who  die  in  infancy. 

The  so-called  legal  principle  that  requires  us  to  find  our 
material  for  the  construction  of  a  document  within  the 
four  corners  of  the  document  is  not  a  sound  principle  of 
exegesis  for  historical  documents,  and  is  not  recognized  as 
valid  by  historical  critics.  Those  who  remind  historians 
that  "a  great  deal  of  most  valuable  historical  research 
becomes  useless,  so  far  as  the  question  of  confessional 
interpretation  is  concerned,"  should  bear  in  mind  that  a 
great  deal  of  valuable  dogmatic  speculation  becomes  use- 
less in  the  interpretation  of  historical  documents  that  use 
such  plain  language  as  "elect  infants  dying  in  infancy." 

6.    Dr.  Warfield  has  recently  said  :  — 

"  I  think  we  may  characterize  the  interpretation  of  chap.  x.  sec.  3, 
which  finds  a  body  of  non-elect  infants  dying  in  infancy  implied  in  its 
statement,  as  one  of  the  most  astonishing  pieces  of  misrepresentations 
in  literary  history."  —  Ought  the  Confession  of  Faith  to  be  revised,  p.  54. 

The  only  explanation  of  this  intemperate  language  that 
we  can  think  of  is,  that  the  author  of  it  is  fresh  in  his 


130  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

Study  of  the  Westminster  divines  and  in  the  history  of 
doctrine,  and  therefore  makes  up  for  lack  of  evidence  by 
boldness  of  utterance. 

The  reader  of  this  article,  unless  we  greatly  mistake, 
will  conclude  that  if  there  are  any  astonishing  pieces  of 
misrepresentations,  they  are  on  the  side  of  those  who  strive 
so  earnestly  to  stem  the  stream  of  history  in  order  to  put 
new  doctrines  into  venerable  historical  documents.  Such 
methods  of  dealing  with  the  Confession  make  it  a  nose  of 
wax,  and  change  its  face  so  that  its  parents  would  not 
recognize  their  own  offspring.  Loose  subscription  makes 
subscription  worse  than  useless.  But  falsification  of  his- 
torical documents  in  the  interest  of  any  theories,  however 
excellent  they  may  be  in  themselves,  is  demoralizing  to  the 
highest  degree.  The  ingenious  attempts  that  are  made  to 
avoid  the  plain  grammatical,  logical,  rhetorical,  and  his- 
torical meaning  of  the  Tenth  Chapter  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  are  doing  more  injury  to  the  Confession  than  if  it 
were  revised  in  a  hundred  places,  or  were  placed  upon  the 
shelf  as  a  venerable  historical  document,  and  a  new  creed 
were  substituted  for  it  in  the  practical  use  of  the  church. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  no  longer  believes  in  the  doc- 
trines explicitly  set  forth  in  the  Tenth  Chapter,  sec.  3,  4. 
It  is  simple  honesty  to  make  this  confession  and  to  revise 
them,  in  some  way,  out  of  the  Confession.  They  cannot 
be  explained  away  by  speculative  dogmatics.  They  may  be 
cut  away,  or  new  statements  may  be  substituted  for  them. 
Something  must  be  done  for  their  revision.  There  can  be 
no  peace  until  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  damnation  of 
the  heathen  and  their  babes  is  removed  from  the  creed 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 


VII. 
A   NON-GROWING   CREED. 

BY   THE    REV.    SAMUEL    M.    HAMILTON,    D.D. 

I  AM  heartily  in  favor  of  a  moderate  revision  of  our  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  I  am  so  because  I  am  a  Calvinist,  and 
I  want  to  see  Calvinism  set  before  the  world  in  its  proper 
light.  I  am  so  because  I  love  and  honor  the  Westminster 
Confession,  and  I  want  that  Confession  made  as  perfect 
as  it  can  be  made. 

Those  who  desire  Revision  have  no  intention  of  mangling 
one  of  the  venerable  standards  of  our  church.  No,  indeed  ; 
they  hold  the  Westminster  system  just  as  strongly,  as 
honestly,  and  as  intelligently  as  those  opposed  to  any 
change.  But  they  do  not  make  the  Confession  into  a  sort 
of  fetich,  and  bow  down  to  it  and  worship  it.  They  know 
it  to  be  what  it  really  is,  —  a  merely  human  document, 
with  many  imperfections  in  it,  like  everything  human,  and 
therefore  capable  of  changes  which  will  make  it  a  better, 
a  more  scriptural,  and  a  more  useful  document  than  ever 
yet  it  has  been.  That  is  the  position  of  the  Revisionist. 
Is  there  anything  in  it  to  frighten  anybody.?  Is  there 
anything  in  it  radical  or  revolutionary  ? 

But  some  very  conservative  brethren  say  :  "  Don't  touch 
the  Confession.  Revision  is  a  dangerous  process.  One 
never  knows  where  the  changes  will  stop."  Dangerous! 
To  me  the  only  dangerous  thing  is  a  forever  unchanging 

131 


132  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

creed.  To  me  a  non-growing  creed  is  a  God-dishonoring 
thing.  A  non-growing  creed  is  not  a  fit  creed  for  a  church 
that  beHeves  in  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  guide 
it  into  all  truth.  Was  His  work  in  guiding  the  Presbyterian 
Church  into  a  fuller  understanding  of  revealed  truth  fin- 
ished when  the  Westminster  Assembly  closed  its  sessions  ? 
We  have  learned  something  in  the  last  two  hundred  years. 
Theology,  alone  of  the  sciences,  has  not  remained  sta- 
tionary. While  holding  firmly  to  the  type  of  truth  re- 
ceived from  the  fathers,  we  recognize  ''the  development 
of  Christian  doctrine."  Some  of  the  old  truths  we  look  at 
from  new  points  of  view,  and  others  of  them  we  express 
in  new  ways.  The  Spirit  is  leading  the  church  all  the 
time  into  profounder  interpretations  of  the  great  mysteries 
of  Christianity.  Shall  we  give  no  place  to  this  new  knowl- 
edge, this  clearer  understanding  of  the  truth,  in  our  Pres- 
byterian creed  ?  Then  the  best  and  most  earnest  minds 
in  our  church  must  find  themselves  out  of  harmony  with 
that  creed  in  some  particulars. 

I  favor  a  Revision  which  shall  introduce  into  our  Con- 
fession some  adequate  expression  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ.  There  is  no  such  adequate  expression  in  it  now. 
The  Westminster  divines  were  not  competent  to  put  it  there. 
I  do  not  blame  them  for  that.  They  had  not  the  proper 
view-points.  Two  terms  are  necessary  to  describe  the  God 
revealed  in  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  a  Sovereign,  and  he  is  a 
Father.  These  two  are  not  mutually  exclusive.  They 
must  coalesce  if  God  is  to  be  a  God  for  men.  Now,  as 
Principal  Fairbairn  well  points  out,  there  is  a  vast  differ- 
ence between  a  mere  sovereign  and  a  mere  father  and  a 
paternal  sovereign  and  a  regal  father.  '*  The  first  thought 
of  the  bare  legal  sovereign  is  law,  and  in  enforcing  law  he 
has  no  end  but  vindicating  his  own  authority ;  the  first 
thought  of  the  regal  parent  is  child,  —  wrong,  lost,  guilty, 


A    NON-GROWING    CREED.  1 33 

and  to  be  saved,  not  by  the  law  being  lowered,  not  by 
order  being  violated,  but  by  the  Son  that  comes  through 
mercy,  and  the  life  that  comes  through  redemption."  Un- 
fortunately the  Westminster  divines  over-emphasized  the 
sovereignty  of  God,  and  overlooked  the  fatherhood.  They 
separated  what  ought  to  be  blended,  and  their  position 
resulted  in  the  absence  from  the  Confession,  in  any  fulness 
or  emphasis,  of  these  vital  doctrines  —  *'  the  love  of  God 
to  all  mankind ;  the  gift  of  His  Son,  to  be  the  propitiation 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  ;  and  the  offer  of  salvation 
to  all  men,  without  distinction,  on  the  ground  of  Christ's 
perfect  sacrifice."  Let  us  for  a  moment  put  all  prejudice 
out  of  our  minds,  and  think  calmly  of  a  Confession  of 
Faith  whose  purpose  is  to  set  before  the  world  what  Pres- 
byterians conceive  to  be  the  teaching  of  Scripture,  which 
yet  gives  no  place,  certainly  no  conspicuous  place,  to  these 
glorious  truths  that  fill  the  New  Testament  from  cover  to 
cover  —  these  truths  that  are  distinctly  the  message  of  the 
Gospel.  Can  we  be  satisfied  to  leave  it  so  ?  We  may  pile 
together  all  the  phrases  we  can  cull  from  the  Confession 
about  the  love  and  kindness  and  forgiving  mercy  of  God, 
—  still  the  heart  of  the  Gospel  is  not  there.  I  want  to 
put  the  heart  of  the  Gospel  there.  I  want  to  make  promi- 
nent, as  it  should  be,  the  great,  glad  truth  that  the  religion 
of  Jesus  Christ  is  a  religion  of  joy  and  hope  for  everybody 
on  the  face  of  the  globe.  Therefore  I  believe  that  the 
advocates  of  Revision  are  simply  following  the  plain  leading 
of  Holy  Scripture. 

Again,  I  favor  a  Revision  which  shall  recast,  or  strike 
out  of  the  Confession,  certain  statements  that  horrify  men's 
ordinary  sense  of  justice.  Christian  consciousness  is  often 
spoken  of  with  ridicule.  Well,  it  is  a  phrase  that  easily 
lends  itself  to  the  ridicule  of  a  certain  class  of  mind.  But 
I  draw  no  argument  from    Christian   consciousness.     My 


134  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

point  IS  a  much  simpler  one,  and  it  is  unimpeachable. 
Any  dogma  which  shocks  the  moral  sense  of  man  —  a 
God-given  sense  —  will  find  it  hard  to  maintain  itself. 
Most  thoroughly  do  I  agree  with  the  statement  of  Canon 
Aubrey  Moore  :  ''  The  conscience  of  to-day  —  and  it  is  a 
real  gain  that  it  should  be  so  —  refuses  to  believe  that  the 
imprimatur  of  religion  can  be  given  to  that  which  is  not 
good,  or  that  God  would  put  us  to  moral  confusion.  It 
would  rather  give  up  religion  altogether  than  accept  one 
which  will  not  endorse  and  advance  our  highest  moral 
ideas."  Now  the  statements  in  the  Confession  about  elect 
infants,  and  the  damnation  of  the  heathen,  and  uncondi- 
tional pretention,  shock  men,  in  spite  of  all  efforts  to 
explain  them.  They  are  in  conflict  with  ''our  highest 
moral  ideas."  Take  the  last-mentioned  item,  uncondi- 
tional pretention.  If  that  were  essential  to  the  Calvinistic 
system,  as  some  assert,  I  am  free  to  confess  that  I  could 
not  stay  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  I  am  a  Presby- 
terian born  and  bred.  But  pretention  is  no  necessary  part 
of  Calvinism.  It  is  a  mere  excrescence,  a  mere  human 
inference,  a  mere  attempt  of  men  to  confine  the  ways  of 
the  Almighty  within  the  limits  of  their  own  petty  syllo- 
gizing. That  God  has  chosen  a  people  for  Himself  is  a 
glorious  truth ;  for,  when  interpreted,  it  simply  means  that 
I,  as  a  believer,  am  what  I  am  through  the  grace  of  God, 
dependent  absolutely  on  Him  for  my  salvation,  and  there- 
fore sure  of  it.  But  to  infer  from  this  that  God  passes 
some  men  by,  arbitrarily  leaving  them  to  their  fate,  never 
giving  them  a  chance,  is  impossible  to  any  one  who  has 
caught  the  dimmest  vision  of  Him  who  is  the  God  and 
Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  All  I  know  about  God 
Christ  has  taught  me ;  and  He  has  taught  me  to  know  and 
love  and  worship,  not  a  God  who  passes  any  man  by,  but 
a  God  who,  while  He  abhors  their  sin,  thinks  first  of  His 


A    NON-GROWING    CREED.  1 35 

guilty  children,  a  God  who  must  seek  and  save  the  lost 
everywhere.  He  can  no  more  help  it  than  an  Eastern 
shepherd  can  help  going  after  the  one  in  his  flock  that  has 
wandered.  It  is  the  joy,  it  is  the  necessity  of  His  being. 
That  is  my  God,  and  the  dogma  of  preterition  would  rob 
me  of  Him.  I  know  that  some  try  to  explain  the  state- 
ments of  the  third  chapter  of  the  Confession  in  a  way  that 
will  enable  them  to  hold  the  dogma  of  preterition,  and  still 
preach  the  God  of  Jesus  Christ.  They  say  that  the  chap- 
ter does  not  teach  unconditional  foreordi nation  to  eternal 
death.  Well,  it  certainly  seems  to  teach  it.  Hundreds  of 
able  and  honorable  men  who  have  read  the  chapter  believe 
that  this  is  its  teaching.  I  ask  the  brethren  who  are 
spending  so  much  labor  in  trying  to  explain  its  obviously 
harsh  statements,  why  not  change  them,  so  as  to  make 
them  say  precisely  what  you  mean  }  Is  a  Confession  which 
requires  you  to  be  continually  explaining  to  people  in  what 
sense  you  understand  some  of  its  articles,  one  with  which, 
as  intelligent  men,  you  ought  to  be  satisfied  }  Surely  the 
advocates  of  Revision  are  simply  following  the  dictates  of 
common  sense. 

And,  finally,  I  favor  a  Revision  which  shall  make  the 
Confession  express  the  real,  living  faith  of  our  church 
to-day.  Does  it  do  that  now }  I  do  not  believe  that,  after 
the  discussion  of  the  past  few  months,  any  one  would 
venture  to  assert  that  a  majority  of  our  ministers  accept 
all  the  statements  of  the  third  and  tenth  chapters.  This, 
however,  I  am  sure  of :  were  an  utter  stranger  to  Presby- 
terianism  to  come  to  New  York  City,  and  attend  any  of 
our  churches  for  a  year,  and  listen  to  the  preaching  in 
them,  and  then  were  to  set  himself  to  study  the  West- 
minster Confession,  he  would  be  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  was  a  wide  chasm  between  our  preaching  and 
our  creed.     Why  should  we  allow  this  to  be  so  ?     What 


136  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

is  the  use  of  our  Confession,  if  it  does  not  set  forth  in  plain 
language,  intelligible  to  all,  what  as  Presbyterians  we  actu- 
ally believe  and  teach  ?  Surely  the  advocates  of  Revision 
are  simply  following  the  dictates  of  common  honesty. 

These  are  my  reasons  for  the  position  I  occupy.  I 
beheve  in  a  Revision  that  will  be  moderate  and  sensible, 
that  will  leave  the  Calvinistic  system  absolutely  intact, 
and  that  will  introduce  only  such  changes  as  will  help  to 
make  our  Confession  of  Faith  more  Scriptural  than  it  is, 
and  take  away  all  grounds  for  imputing  to  our  church 
beliefs  that  horrify  men's  ordinary  sense  of  justice. 


VIII. 

THE    CONFESSION    TESTED   BY   SCRIPTURE. 

BY    PROF.    CHARLES   A.    BRIGGS,    D.D. 

The  seventeenth  century  was  devoted  to  the  construc- 
tion of  elaborate  systems  of  doctrine,  in  which  the  faith 
of  the  Reformation  was  expressed  over  against  the  scholas- 
tic theology  of  the  Middle  Ages  and  the  decrees  of  the 
Council  of  Trent.  The  creeds  of  the  sixteenth  century 
were  simple  expressions  of  the  great  principles  of  the 
Reformation  and  of  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Christian 
system  of  faith,  viewed  in  relation  to  these  principles.  But 
in  the  seventeenth  century  divines  went  further,  and  com- 
posed systems  of  doctrine  as  they  organized  systems  of 
church  government,  to  be  the  fortresses  of  orthodoxy  in 
the  different  national  churches  of  Europe.  The  Lutheran 
churches  laid  more  stress  upon  sound  doctrine,  but  the 
Reformed  churches  gave  more  attention  to  sound  disci- 
pline and  a  godly  life.  The  battle  of  Puritanism  with 
Anglo-Catholicism  in  the  Church  of  England  was  chiefly 
a  battle  for  the  holy  discipline  in  accordance  with  God's 
word.  Doctrines  of  faith  were  not  in  dispute  between 
Whitgift  and  Cartwright.  The  doctrinal  contention  first 
became  prominent  in  the  battle  with  Archbishop  Laud 
and  his  school  of  British  Arminians.  The  Westminster 
Confession  accordingly  embraces  religion,  doctrines  of 
faith,   morals,  the   holy  discipline,  as  well   as   sound  doc- 

137 


138  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

trine ;  and  it  thereby  became  the  most  elaborate  creed  of 
Christendom. 

The  Westminster  divines  pm'sued  the  method  of  first 
constructing  their  system,  and  then  searching  for  texts 
from  the  Scriptures  to  prove  it.  This  has  been  the  favor- 
ite method  of  dogmatic  divines  until  the  present  day.  A 
recent  General  Assembly  unhappily  endorsed  this  method 
when  they  appointed  a  committee  to  revise  the  proof-texts 
of  the  Westminster  Confession.  We  do  not  blame  the 
Westminster  divines  for  this  method.  It  was  the  method 
of  their  age,  and  they  made  a  fuller  and  better  use  of 
Scripture  than  any  of  their  predecessors.  But  in  recent 
times  the  theological  discipline  of  Biblical  theology  has 
sprung  into  the  field,  in  which  the  method  is  to  study  the 
theology  of  the  entire  Bible,  and  to  build  up  the  Biblical 
system  of  doctrine  by  an  induction  of  all  the  passages  of 
the  Bible.  Those  divines  who  undertake  any  other  method 
at  present  in  the  construction  of  a  system  of  Christian 
doctrine  are  guilty  of  a  mutilation  of  the  Scriptures  that 
should  not  be  winked  at. 

There  have  been  so  many  loose  sayings  in  recent  times 
with  reference  to  the  proof-texts  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession that  it  has  seemed  best  to  make  a  careful  induction 
of  the  facts.  This  shows  what  passages  the  Westminster 
divines  used,  how  they  used  them,  and  also  what  passages 
they  neglected  to  use.  Little  attention  is  given  to  the 
proof-texts  of  the  American  edition  of  the  Confession, 
because  these  are  without  authority  and  valueless.  We 
desire  to  know  what  proof-texts  were  used  by  the  West- 
minster divines  themselves  to  prove  their  statements. 
These  are  given  from  the  original  document.  The  New 
Testament  and  the  Psalter  are  used  as  specimens  of  their 
work  in  order  to  exhibit  their  methods.  The  tables,  given 
in  the  Appendix,  will  guide  others  to  pursue  the  study 
further. 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 39 

We  shall  begin  with  the  epistles  of  Paul  because  these 
are  used  583  times,  more  than  all  the  rest  of  the  New 
Testament.  The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  cited  84  times. 
This  belongs  to  the  Pauline  type  of  theology.  Thus  the 
school  of  Paul  is  cited  66^  times.  There  are  248  citations 
from  the  four  Gospels,  92  from  Acts,  21  from  the  epistle  of 
James,  49  from  the  epistles  of  Peter,  9  from  Jude,  and  j6 
from  the  epistles  and  apocalypse  of  John,  making  155 
from  the  other  apostles  than  Paul.  This  gives  us  66y  from 
the  Pauline  epistles  over  against  495  citations  from  Jesus 
and  the  other  New  Testament  writers.  Thus  the  Confes- 
sion is  built  on  the  words  of  Paul  rather  than  the  words  of 
the  Lord  Jesus.  It  is  Pauline  rather  than  comprehensively 
Christian.  This  will  appear  more  clearly  in  the  course  of 
our  investigation. 

THE    CONFESSION    AND    PAUL. 

A.    The  Earlier  Panlmism. 

I.    The  epistle  to  the  Romans  is  cited  185  times. 

This  epistle  was  the  favorite  epistle  of  the  Westminster 
divines.  Nearly  half  of  the  verses  are  used,  and  some  of 
them  are  used  as  many  as  four,  five,  and  six  times.  Atten- 
tion is  called  to  the  following  specimens  of  the  use  of  this 
epistle  by  the  Westminster  divines. 

{a)  The  faults  in  the  use  of  the  section,  chap.  ii.  1-16, 
are  :  — 

(i)  The  neglect  of  the  doctrine  of  the  goodness  of  God 
leading  men  to  repentance  in  ver.  4. 

"  Or  despisest  thou  the  riches  of  his  goodness  and  forbearance  and 
long  suffering ;  not  knowing  that  the  goodness  of  God  leadeth  thee  to 
repentance  ?  " 

(2)  The  neglect  of  the  doctrine  of  the  rewards  of  the 
well-doing  in  vers.  7,  10. 


I40  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

'*  To  them  who  by  patient  continuance  in  well-doing  seek  for  glory 
and  honour  and  immortality,  —  eternal  life  (7 ) ;  but  glory,  honour,  and 
peace,  to  every  man  that  worketh  good,  to  the  Jew  first,  and  also  to  the 
Gentile  "(10). 

(3)  The  misuse  of  ver.  5,  referring  it  to  the  damnation  of 
the  reprobate  (xxxiii.  2),  when  it  really  teaches  the  wrath  of 
God  in  the  day  of  judgment  against  the  hard-hearted  and 
impenite7it. 

"But  after  thy  hardness  and  impenitent  heart  treasurest  up  unto 
thyself  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath  and  revelation  of  the  righteous 
judgment  of  God." 

(4)  The  disproportionate  use  of  vers.  14  and  15. 

"  For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the 
things  contained  in  the  law,  these,  having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto 
themselves"  (14),  "  which  shew  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their 
hearts,  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts  the 
mean  while  accusing  or  else  excusing  one  another  "  (15). 

Ver.  14  is  used  thrice  (i.  i,  iv.  2,  xix.  i)  and  ver.  15  four 
times  (i.  i,  iv.  2,  vi.  6,  xix.  i). 

ib)  Chap.  via.  18-39  is  one  of  the  grandest  sections  in 
the  epistle. 

"  For  I  reckon  that  the  sufferings  of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy 
to  be  compared  with  the  glory  which  shall  be  revealed  in  us  (18).  For 
the  earnest  expectation  of  the  creature  waiteth  for  the  manifestation  of 
the  sons  of  God  (19).  For  the  creature  was  made  subject  to  vanity,  not 
willingly,  but  by  reason  of  him  who  hath  subjected  the  same  in  hope 
(20),  because  the  creature  itself  also  shall  be  delivered  from  the  bond- 
age of  corruption  into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  children  of  God  (21). 
For  we  know  that  the  whole  creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain 
together  until  now  (22).  And  not  only  they,  but  ourselves  also,  which 
have  the  firstfruits  of  the  Spirit,  even  we  ourselves  groan  within  our- 
selves, waiting  for  the  adoption,  to  wit,  the  redemption  of  our  body  (23). 
For  we  are  saved  by  hope  :  but  hope  that  is  seen  is  not  hope  :  for  what 
a  man  seeth,  why  doth  he  yet  hope  for?  (24).  But  if  we  hope  for  that 
we  see  not,  then  do  we  with  patience  wait  for  it  (25).     Likewise  the 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  I4I 

Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmities:  for  we  know  not  what  we  should 
pra}-  for  as  we  ought :  but  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us 
with  groanings  which  cannot  be  uttered  (26).  And  he  that  searcheth 
the  hearts  knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit,  because  he  maketh 
intercession  for  the  saints  according  to  the  will  of  God  (27).  And  we 
know  that  all  things  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love  God,  to 
them  who  are  the  called  according  to  his  purpose  (28).  For  whom  he 
did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of 
his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the  firstborn  among  many  brethren  (29). 
Moreover  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called :  and  whom 
he  called,  them  he  also  justified :  and  whom  he  justified,  them  he  also 
glorified  (30).  What  shall  we  then  say  to  these  things?  If  God  be  for 
us.  who  can  be  against  us?  (31).  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but 
delivered  him  up  for  us  all,  how  shall  he  not  with  him  also  freely  give 
us  all  things?  (32).  Who  shall  lay  anything  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect? 
It  is  God  that  justifieth  (^2)  :  who  is  he  that  condemneth?  It  is  Christ 
that  died,  yea  rather,  that  is  risen  again,  who  is  even  at  the  right  hand 
of  God,  who  also  maketh  intercession  for  us  (34) .  Who  shall  separate 
us  from  the  love  of  Christ?  shall  tribulation,  or  distress,  or  persecution, 
or  famine,  or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or  sword?  (35)  —  as  it  is  written,  For 
thy  sake  we  are  killed  all  the  day  long ;  we  are  accounted  as  sheep  for 
the  slaughter  (Ps.  iv.  22)  (36).  Nay,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more 
than  conquerors  through  him  that  loved  us  (37).  For  I  am  persuaded, 
that  neither  death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  powers, 
nor  things  present,  nor  things  to  come  (3S),  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor 
any  other  creature,  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God, 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord  "  (39). 

(i)  Ver.  18  is  misused  to  teach  "that  we  cannot,  by 
our  best  works,  merit  pardon  of  sin,  or  eternal  Hfe  at  the 
hand  of  God,  by  reason  of  the  great  disproportion  that  is 
between  them  and  the  glory  to  come  "  (xvi.  5),  a  doctrine 
which  may  be  true,  but  is  certainly  not  taught  in  this 
passage. 

(2)  Ver.  20  is  misused  to  teach  that  the  sinner  is  made 
subject  to  all  temporal  miseries  (vi.  6),  a  doctrine  which  is 
not  taught  in  the  passage.  This  citation  is  omitted  from 
the  American  list  of  proof-texts. 

(3)  The  magnificent  thought   of   vers.    18-22,  that  the 


142  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

whole  creation  is  travailing  for  the  Messianic  redemption 
which  it  is  to  share,  is  altogether  ignored. 

(4)  Vers.  23-25  are  used  to  prove  that,  "as  Christ 
would  have  us  to  be  certainly  persuaded  that  there  shall 
be  a  day  of  judgment,  — for  the  greater  consolation  of  the 
godly  in  their  adversity  "  (xxxiii.  3).  But  these  proof -texts 
are  omitted  from  the  American  list. 

(5)  The  following  verses  are  used  correctly  :  ver.  26 
(xxi.  3),  ver.  28  (v.  7  and  xx.  i),  ver.  30  (iii.  5,  x.  i,  and 
xi.  i),  ver.  32  (xi.  3),  ver.  33  (iii.  8),  ver.  34  (viii.  4,  8). 

(6)  Ver.  30  is  used  to  prove  the  chain  of  redemption. 
"Wherefore  they  who  are  elected, — are  effectually  called 
unto  faith  in  Christ  by  his  Spirit  working  in  due  season  ; 
are  justified,  adopted,  sanctified  "  (iii.  6).  But  the  American 
list  reduces  the  citation  to  "  them  he  also  called,"  missing 
the  point  of  the  citation  altogether.  Ver.  28  is  here  cited 
to  prove  that  "  Neither  are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ, 
effectually  called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and  saved, 
but  the  elect  only  "  (iii.  6).  And  it  is  added,  "  Refer  the 
reader  to  the  end  of  the  chapter."  This  passage  certainly 
never  was  designed  by  the  apostle  to  set  forth  any  such 
doctrine  ;  but  the  reverse,  to  make  it  certain  that  the  en- 
tire work  of  redemption  would  be  accomplished  by  the  love 
of  God  for  all  the  elect.     The  non-elect  are  not  mentioned. 

(7)  Vers.  33-39  are  cited  to  prove  the  efficacy  of  the 
merit  and  intercession  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  "  the  free  and 
unchangeable  love  of  God  the  Father"  (xvii.  2). 

(8)  Christ  as  the  ethical  aim  and  image  to  which  the 
elect  are  to  be  conformed  —  as  the  end  of  the  order  of 
salvation,  in  ver.  29  seq.  is  altogether  neglected. 

{c)  Romajis  ix.  1 1-24.  (i)  It  is  significant  that  the 
Westminster  divines  neglect  vers.   2-3. 

*'I  have  great  heaviness  and  continual  sorrow  in  my  heart.  For  I 
could  wish  that  myself  were  accursed  from  Christ  for  my  brethren,  my 
kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh/'' 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 43 

(2)  Ver.  16  is  cited  incorrectly  in  xvi.  7,  but  is  omitted 
from  the  American  list. 

(3)  Vers.  22-23  ^^6  cited  with  questionable  propriety 
in  xxxiii.  2.  They  are  also  used  in  iii.  3  to  prove  *'  others 
foreordained  to  everlasting  death  "  ;  but  they  do  not  furnish 
proof  of  this  proposition. 

{d)  Three  of  the  most  important  verses  of  ckap.  x.  are 
not  used  :  — 

"  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that 
believeth  "  (4).  "The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth,  and  in 
thy  heart:  that  is,  the  word  of  faith,  which  we  preach"  (8).  "For 
whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved  "  (13). 

{e)  Chap.  xii.  is  the  finest  chapter  in  the  epistle,  and 
yet  only  ver.  2  is  used,  and  that  only  in  the  last  clause,  to 
prove  that  '*  good  works  are  only  such  as  God  hath  com- 
manded in  his  Holy  Word  "  (xvi.  i). 

(/)  Chap.  xiii.  i-io  is  cited  in  its  separate  verses  ten 
times  (xix.  2,  5  ;  xx.  4;  xxiii.  i,  2,  4),  especially  to  prove 
duties  to  rulers. 

{g)  Chaps,  xiv.  and  xv.  are  little  used,  and  the  great  doc- 
trines of  Christian  expediency  and  self-sacrifice  in  these 
chapters  are  neglected  in  the  most  important  verses. 

2.    I  Corinthians. 

This  epistle  is  used  eighty-eight  times. 

{a)    There  is  no  use  of  chap.  i.  j-%, 

"  So  that  ye  come  behind  in  no  gift ;  waiting  for  the  coming  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ :  who  shall  also  confirm  you  unto  the  end,  that  ye 
may  be  blameless  in  the  day  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 

The  doctrine  of  the  blamelessness  of  Christians  in  the 
day  of  judgment  is  neglected  here  and  elsewhere  in  the 
Scriptures  by  the  Westminster  divines,  and  is  also  neglected 
in  the  Confession.  The  following  important  verses  are  also 
passed  by  :  — 


144  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

"  But  we  preach  Christ  crucified,  unto  the  Jews  a  stumbling  block, 
and  unto  the  Greeks  foolishness ;  but  unto  them  which  are  called,  both 
Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God  " 
(23-24). 

{b)  The  famous  passage,  chap.  Hi.  10-15,  is  not  used  at 
all.  This  is  one  of  the  chief  proof-texts  used  for  the  Ro- 
man CathoUc  doctrine  of  Purgatory.  It  really  sets  forth 
the  fiery  test  of  the  Messianic  judgment,  and  it  is  one  of 
the  most  important  passages  in  the  New  Testament  for 
Eschatology. 

{c)  Chap.  vi.  12-20  with  its  law  of  Christian  expediency 
and  its  doctrine  that  the  body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  overlooked.  The  same  is  true  also  in  chaps,  viii. 
and.;r.  23-33. 

{d)  Only  four  verses  of  chap,  xii.  are  used  and  these  not 
the  most  important.     The  following  are  omitted :  — 

"  Now  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same  Spirit.  And  there 
are  differences  of  administrations,  but  the  same  Lord.  And-  there  are 
diversities  of  operations,  but  it  is  the  same  God  which  worketh  all  in 
all"  (4-6).  "  Now  ye  are  the  body  of  Christ,  and  members  in  partic- 
ular" (27). 

{e)  In  that  magnificent  chapter  xiii.,  treating  of  Christian 
Love,  only  vers.  3  and  12  are  used  :  the  former  merely  to 
prove  that  works  done  by  unregenerate  men  cannot  please 
God  because  they  are  not  done  in  a  right  manner  (xvi.  7)  ; 
the  latter  merely  to  prove  that  '^  the  purest  churches  under 
heaven  are  subject  both  to  mixture  and  error  "  (xxv.  5), 
both  of  which  citations  are  perversions  of  the  meaning  of 
the  passages. 

(/)  Only  seventeen  of  the  fifty-eight  verses  of  chap.  xv. 
are  cited,  and  some  of  the  most  important  are  neglected, 
such  as : — 

"  But  now  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the  firstfruits 
of  them  that  slept"  (20).     "  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall  have 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  I45 

delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father ;  when  he  shall  have 
put  down  all  rule  and  all  authority  and  power''  (24).  "  And  when  all 
things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be 
subject  unto  him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in 
all"  (28). 

3.    2  Corinthians. 

This  epistle  is  used  thirty-eight  times. 

{a)    There  are  many  omissions  in  chaps,  i.-iv.,  such  as  : : — 

'*  Blessed  be  God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Father  of  mercies,  and  the  God  of  all  comfort''  (i.  3).  "For  God, 
who  commanded  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  in  our 
hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the 
face  of  Jesus  Christ"  (iv.  6). 

The  splendid  passage  iv.  14-18  is  entirely  neglected. 

ib)  Chap.  V.  i-ii  is  the  most  important  passage  with  re- 
crard  to  the  condition  of  Christians  in  the  middle  state,  be- 
tween  death  and  the  advent  day.  Vers,  i,  6,  8  are  used  to 
prove  that  the  souls  of  the  righteous  immediately  return  to 
God  who  gave  them  (xxxii.  i),  and  vers.  10  and  1 1  are  cited 
to  prove  that  all  will  appear  before  the  tribunal  of  Christ  to 
receive  according  to  what  they  have  done  in  the  body ;  and 
to  set  forth  the  certainty  of  the  day  of  judgment,  in  order 
to  deter  men  from  sin  (xxxiii.  i  and  3).  But  the  doctrine 
of  the  middle  state,  as  set  forth  in  this  passage  especially 
in  vers.  4  and  9,  is  overlooked. 

"  For  we  that  are  in  this  tabernacle  do  groan,  being  burdened  :  not 
for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,  but  clothed  upon,  that  mortality  might 
be  swallowed  up  of  life"  (4).  "Wherefore  we  labour,  that,  whether 
present  or  absent,  we  may  be  accepted  of  him"  (9). 

if)  The  important  passage  v.  14-18  is  entirely  neglected 
with  its  doctrine  of  the  constraining  love  of  Christ,  the 
new  creature  in  Christ,  with  the  new  life  which  is  lived 
unto  him  who  died  for  them  and  rose  again. 


146  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

"For  the  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us;  because  we  thus  judge, 
that  if  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead  (14)  :  and  that  he  died  for 
all,  that  they  which  live  should  not  henceforth  live  unto  themselves, 
but  unto  him  which  died  for  them,  and  rose  again  (15).  Wherefore 
henceforth  know  we  no  man  after  the  flesh  :  yea,  though  we  have  known 
Christ  after  the  flesh,  yet  now  henceforth  know  we  him  no  more  (16). 
Therefore  if  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature  :  old  things  are 
passed  away;  behold,  all  things  are  become  new  (17).  And  all  things 
are  of  God,  who  hath  reconciled  us  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  hath 
given  to  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation  "  (18). 

4.    The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 

There  are  fifty-three  citations  from  this  epistle.  Gala- 
tians is  more  frequently  cited  than  the  two  epistles  of  Peter. 
Paul  got  the  better  of  the  argument  with  Peter  in  this 
epistle,  and  this  epistle  influenced  the  Westminster  divines 
more  than  the  two  epistles  of  Peter.  It  is  to  be  feared 
that  they  did  not  take  sufificient  heed  of  the  caution  as  to 
the  "things  hard  to  be  understood"  in  the  epistles  of 
Paul  (2  Peter  iii.  16). 

{a)  Chap.  iii.  17-29  brings  out  the  relation  of  the  old 
covenant  to  the  new,  and  of  the  law  to  Christ,  (i)  Ver.  21 
is  misused  in  the  contrast  between  the  covenant  of  works 
and  the  covenant  of  grace  (vii.  3,  xix.  7),  and  also  to  show 
that  the  ''  uses  of  law  sweetly  comply  with  the  grace  of 
the  gospel "  (xix.  7),  neither  of  which  were  contemplated 
by  the  apostle  when  he  wrote  these  words.  (2)  Ver.  24 
is  used  to  prove  the  clause  that  the  law  as  a  rule  of  life 
gives  "  a  clearer  sight  of  the  need  they  have  of  Christ,  and 
the  perfection  of  his  obedience"  (xix.  6);  but  the  Chris- 
tology  of  the  passage  is  overlooked.  (3)  Ver.  27  is  mis- 
used in  the  American  list  (xxvii.  i),  but  not  in  the  West- 
minster list.  (4)  Ver.  27  is  used  by  the  Westminster 
divines  in  the  chai:)ter  on  Baptism  (xxviii.  i,  6),  to  show 
that  baptism  is  a  sign   and   seal    ''of  his  ingrafting  into 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 4/ 

Christ"  and  that  ''the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered, 
but  really  exhibited  and  conferred."  This  is  all  true, 
although  the  figure  of  speech  is  different ;  but  it  is  certain 
that  the  aim  of  Paul  in  this  verse  was  not  to  teach  the 
doctrine  of  baptism,  but  the  doctrine  of  the  putting  on  of 
Christ  by  faith,  and  this  doctrine  the  Westminster  divines 
ignored  in  their  use  of  these  verses.  Accordingly  we  are 
not  surprised  that  they  should  neglect  to  use  :  — 

"  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus"  (26). 
"  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there 
is  neither  male  nor  female:  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus"  (28). 
"  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according 
to  the  promise"  (29). 

{b)  Chap.  iiK  teaches  the  freedom  of  the  Christian  and 
contrasts  Sinai  and  Jerusalem.  Vers.  8-31  are  not  used 
at  all.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  important  warning  "  Ye 
observe  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years "  (10), 
and  the  sublime  thought,  ''  But  Jerusalem  which  is  above 
is  free,  which  is  the  mother  of  us  all "  (26),  are  both  over- 
looked. 

ic)  In  chap.  vi.  only  ver.  10  is  used,  and  such  splendid 
verses  as  the  following  are  passed  by  :  — 

*'  Brethren,  if  a  man  be  overtaken  in  a  fault,  ye  which  arc  spiritual, 
restore  such  an  one  in  the  spirit  of  meekness  ;  considering  thyself,  lest 
thou  also  be  tempted"  (i).  .  .  .  "Be  not  deceived;  God  is  not 
mocked:  for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also  reap"  (7). 
..."  But  God  forbid  that  I  should  glory,  save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  by  whom  the  world  is  crucified  unto  me,  and  I  unto  the 
world"  (14).  "For  in  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  any 
thing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature"  (15). 

5.    I  Thessalonians. 

This  epistle  is  cited  eleven  times. 

This  little  epistle  is  important  for  its  Eschatology. 

{a)  Chap.  i.  10.   **  And  to  wait  for  his  Son  from  heaven, 


148  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVLSE  ? 

whom  he  raised  from  the  dead,  even  Jesus,  which  dehvered 
us  from  the  wrath  to  come,"  is  cited  to  prove  that  be- 
Hevers  are  free  from  the  condemning  wrath  of  God  (xx.  i)  ; 
but  its  more  important  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  and  our  waiting  for  his  advent  from  heaven  are  not 
used.  Furthermore,  this  passage  is  stricken  out  from  the 
American  list. 

(b)  Chap.  it.  1 3  is  cited  in  i.  4  and  xiv.  2  ;  but  ver.  1 2, 
"  That  ye  would  walk  worthy  of  God,  who  hath  called  you 
unto  his  kingdom  and  glory,"  is  overlooked. 

{c)  There  is  no  citation  from  chap.  Hi.  The  important 
ver.  13,  ''To  the  end  he  may  stablish  your  hearts  un- 
blameable  in  holiness  before  God,  even  our  Father,  at  the 
coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  all  his  saints," 
ought  not  to  have  been  omitted. 

(d)  In  chap.  iv.  ver.  17  is  used  to  prove  that  such  as  are 
found  alive  at  the  advent  shall  not  die,  but  be  changed 
(xxxii.  2).     But  the  important  verses  14-17  are  neglected. 

"  For  if  we  believe  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again,  even  so  them  also 
which  sleep  in  Jesus  will  God  bring  with  him  (14).  For  this  we  say 
unto  you  by  the  word  of  the  Lord,  that  we  which  are  alive  and  remain 
unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord  shall  not  prevent  them  which  are  asleep 
(15).  For  the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout, 
with  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of  God :  and  the 
dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first  (16)  :  then  we  which  are  alive  and  remain 
shall  be  caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord 
in  the  air:  and  so  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord"  (17). 

{e)  If  any  one  will  compare  chap.  v.  with  the  table  of 
Westminster  citations,  he  will  find  a  use  of  some  of  the 
least  important  verses,  and  a  neglect  of  many  important 
ones.  The  use  of  ver.  23  is  noteworthy.  "And  the  very 
God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly  ;  and  I  pray  God  your 
whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  blameless 
unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."     This  is  used 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 49 

to  prove  ''this  sanctification  is  throughout  in  the  whole 
man "  (xiii.  2)  ;  but  the  doctrine  that  this  sanctification 
must  be  complete  at  the  second  advent  is  ignored. 

6.    2  Thessalonia7ts. 

This  epistle  is  cited  fifteen  times. 

{a)  The  doctrine  of  the  judgment  at  the  second  advent, 
in  chap.  i.  5-9,  is  used  in  several  citations  (xxxiii.  2,  3,  and 
vi.  6);  but  vers.  10,  11,  which  present  the  brighter  side, 
are  neglected. 

♦'When  he  shall  come  to  be  glorified  in  his  saints,  and  to  be  ad- 
mired in  all  them  that  believe  (because  our  testimony  among  you  was 
believed)  in  that  day  (10).  Wherefore  also  we  pray  always  for  you, 
that  our  God  would  count  you  worthy  of  this  calling,  and  fulfil  all  the 
good  pleasure  of  his  goodness,  and  the  work  of  faith  with  power"  (11). 

{b)  Chap.  a.  treats  more  fully  of  the  advent  of  the  Mes- 
siah. The  Westminster  divines  make  an  improper  use  of 
vers.  3,  4,  8,  9,  in  order  to  prove  that  "  the  pope  of  Rome 
is  that  Anti-christ,  that  man  of  sin  and  son  of  perdition, 
that  exalteth  himself  in  the  Church  against  Christ,  and  all 
that  is  called  God  "  (xxv.  6).  Here  they  venture  to  inter- 
pret the  apostle's  prediction,  and  apply  it  to  the  pope,  —  a 
very  questionable  proceeding  in  any  case,  and  one  not  at 
all  becoming  in  a  public  Confession  of  Faith.  But  they 
pass  by  the  important  lessons  of  the  passage. 

From  this  earlier  group  of  the  epistles  of  Paul  the  West- 
minster Confession  makes  390  citations,  over  against  248 
citations  from  the  four  Gospels. 

B.    The  Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment. 

These  epistles  present  the  more  mature  theology  of 
Paul.  Ephesians  is  the  one  most  used  in  this  group, 
Colossians  next,  Philippians  but  little,  and  Philemon  not 


156  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVLSE  ? 

at  all.  There  are  130  citations  from  this  group,  over 
against  128  from  the  epistles  of  Peter,  James,  John,  and 
Jude. 

I.    The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesia7is. 

There  are  eighty-one  citations  from  this  epistle. 

{a)  (i)  Chap.  i.  4-7,  9,  1 1,  treating  of  predestination  and 
election,  is  cited  eight  times  (iii.  i,  5,  6,  8).  But  the  aim 
of  the  divine  election,  ''that  we  should  be  holy  and  without 
blame  before  him  in  love  (4),"  is  lost  sight  of.  (2)  The  doc- 
trine of  Christ  as  the  head  of  the  church,  his  body  in  chap. 
i.  22,  23,  is  used  (xxv.  I  and  6)  ;  but  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection  and  enthronement  of  Christ,  to  reign  over  all 
things,  in  vers.  20,  21,  is  neglected. 

ib)  (i)  The  doctrine  of  sin  in  cJiap.  ii.  2,  3,  and  quicken- 
ing of  divine  grace  in  chap.  ii.  4,  5,  8-10  are  used  in  nine 
citations  ;  but  vers.  6,  7  are  used  only  in  xxvi.  i  and  xi.  i 
and  3.  Two  of  these  citations  are  omitted  from  the  Ameri- 
can list,  and  the  other  (xi.  3)  might  as  well  have  been 
omitted,  for  ver.  7  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  rich  grace  of 
God  "in  the  justification  of  sinners,"  but  rather  with  that 
vital  union  with  Christ,  and  participating  with  him  in  his 
entire  experience  of  blessedness,  "  the  exceeding  riches  of 
his  grace  in  kindness  toward  us  in  Christ  Jesus." 

(2)  Vers.  21-22  present  the  holy  temple  of  the  church, 
the  habitation  of  the  Spirit. 

"  In  whom  all  the  building  fidy  framed  together  groweth  unto  an 
holy  temple  in  the  Lord  (21);  in  whom  ye  also  are  builded  together 
for  an  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit "  (22). 

These  are  overlooked  by  the  Confession. 

{c)    Chap.  iii.  16-19  ^^  ^  splendid  passage  :  — 

"  That  he  would  grant  you,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  glory,  to 
be  strengthened  with  might  by  his  Spirit  in  the  inner  man  (16)  ;  that 
Christ  may  dwell  4n  your  hearts  by  faith  ;  that  ye,  being  rooted  and 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  I5I 

grounded  in  love  (17),  may  be  able  to  comprehend  with  all  saints  what 
is  the  breadth,  and  length,  and  depth,  and  height  (18)  ;  and  to  know 
the  love  of  Christ,  which  passeth  knowledge,  that  ye  might  be  filled 
with  all  the  fulness  of  God"  (19)- 

(i)  Vers.  16-19  are  cited  to  prove  ''strengthened  in  all 
saving  graces"  (xiii.  i).  The  American  Ust  reduces  the 
citation  to  ver.  i6,  which  alone  refers  to  the  point. 

(2)  Vers.  16-19  ^^^  cited  to  prove  that  ''all  saints  that 
are  united  to  Jesus  Christ  their  head,  by  his  Spirit,  and  by 
faith,  and  have  fellowship  with  him  in  his  graces"  (xxvi.  i). 
The  American  list  reduces  the  citation  to  vers.  16—17. 
(3)  Vers.  17-19  are  cited  to  prove  "being  enabled  by  the 
Spirit  to  know  the  things  which  are  freely  given  him  of 
God  "  (xviii.  3).  (4)  In  their  uses  of  these  passages  there 
is  not  a  hint  of  the  knowledge-surpassing  love  of  Christ ; 
or  of  the  indwelling  Christ. 

{d)  Chap.  iv.  is  cited  fourteen  times,  (i)  But  the  sec- 
tion vers,  i-io  is  entirely  neglected. 

"  I  therrfore,  the  prisoner  of  the  Lord,  beseech  you  that  ye  walk 
worthy  of  the  vocation  wherewith  ye  are  called  (i),  with  all  holiness 
and  meekness,  with  long  suffering,  forbearing  one  another  in  love  (2) ; 
endeavoring  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace  (3). 
There  is  one  body  and  one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope  of 
your  calling  (4)  ;  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism  (5),  one  God  and 
Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  you  all  (6). 
But  unto  every  one  of  us  is  given  grace  according  to  the  measure  of 
the  gift  of  Christ  (7).  Wherefore  he  saith,  When  he  ascended  up  on 
high,  he  led  captivity  captive,  and  gave  gifts  unto  men  (Ps.  Ixviii.  18) 
(8).  Now  that  he  ascended,  what  is  it  but  that  he  also  descended  first 
into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth?  (9).  He  that  descended  is  the  same 
also  that  ascended  up  far  above  all  heavens,  that  he  might  fill  all 
things)  ''  (10). 

Ver.  10  is  improperly  used  by  the  Westminster  divines 
(xxxii.  i),  but  it  is  omitted  in  the  American  list.  These 
are  among  the  most  important  verses  of   the  epistle,  not 


1 52  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

only  for  the  doctrines  of  the  unity  of  the  church,  the 
Fatherhood  and  immanence  of  God,  and  the  working  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  but  also  for  the  descent  of  Christ  into  the 
abode  of  the  dead  and  the  captives  of  the  ascension. 

(2)  Vers.  1 1  and  12  are  used  by  the  Westminster  divines 
(xxiii.  3),  but  these  are  cast  out  of  the  American  list. 
Vers.  11-13  are  cited  to  prove  the  ministry  (xxv.  3). 
(3)  Ver.  1 3  is  very  appropriately  cited  to  prove  that  *'  the 
will  of  man  is  made  perfectly  and  immutably  free  to  good 
alone,  in  tJie  state  of  glory  only''  (ix.  5). 

{e)    Chap.  V.  is  cited  seven  times. 

(i)    But  there  are  very  striking  omissions,  such  as  :  — 

"Be  ye  therefore  followers  of  God,  as  dear  children"  (i).  "For 
the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  in  all  goodness  and  righteousness  and  truth  " 
(9).     "  Be  filled  with  the  Spirit"  (18). 

(2)  The  section,  vers.  23-33,  is  used  four  times  to  prove 
that  Christ  is  the  head  and  Saviour  of  the  church  (viii.  i), 
sanctification  by  the  word  and  spirit  (xiii.  i),  that  Christ  is 
the  head  and  spouse  of  the  church  (xxv.  i),  and  the  efficacy 
of  baptism  (xxviii.  6)  ;  but  the  purity  and  holiness  of  the 
glorified  church,  which  is  the  crown  of  the  passage,  is 
overlooked. 

(/)  There  are  but  five  citations  from  chap,  vi.,  and  these 
have  been  selected  capriciously.  The  doctrine  of  the 
devil,  and  of  evil  spirits  in  high  places,  of  vers.  11-16,  is 
passed  by. 

2.    The  Epistle  to  the  Philippians. 

This  epistle  is  used  eighteen  times. 

{a)  Chap.  ii.  5-1 1  is  the  most  important  section  in  this 
epistle,  as  follows  :  — 

"  Let  this  mind  be  in  you,  which  was  also  in  Christ  Jesus  (5)  :  Who, 
being  in   the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE. 


153 


God  (6)  ;  But  made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon  him  the 
form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men  (7)  ;  And 
being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross  (8).  Wherefore  God 
also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above 
every  name  (9)  :  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of 
things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  (10)  ; 
And  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the 
glory  of  God  the  Father"  (11). 

The  Westminster  divines  use  only  vers.  6  and  8  to  prove 
that  the  Son  of  God  was  "equal  with  the  Father"  (viii.  2), 
and  that  he  "  was  crucified  and  died  "  (viii.  4).  The  doc- 
trine of  the  humiliation  of  Christ  in  the  incarnation,  of 
ver.  7,  and  his  exaltation  and  enthronement,  of  vers.  9-11, 
were  altogether  neglected. 

{b)  Chap.  in.  20-21  is  an  important  eschatological  pas- 
sage, as  follows  :  — 

"  For  our  conversation  is  in  heaven ;  from  whence  also  we  look  for 
the  Saviour,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (20)  :  who  shall  change  our  vile 
body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according 
to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  even  to  subdue  all  things  unto  him- 
self" (21). 

The  doctrines  of  the  heavenly  citizenship,  and  of  looking 
for  the  second  advent,  of  ver.  20,  are  neglected.  Ver.  21 
is  used  merely  to  prove  that  the  "bodies  of  the  just"  shall 
"be  made  conformable  to  his  (Christ's)  glorious  body" 
(xxxii.  3). 

{c)    Chap.  iv.  y-S  is  overlooked. 

"And  the  peace  of  God,  which  passeth  all  understanding,  shall  keep 
your  hearts  and  minds  through  Christ  Jesus  (7).  Finally,  brethren, 
whatsoever  things  are  true,  whatsoever  things  are  honest,  whatsoever 
things  are  just,  whatsoever  things  are  pure,  whatsoever  things  are  lovely, 
whatsoever  things  are  of  good  report,  if  there  be  any  virtue,  and  if  there 
be  any  praise,  think  on  these  things"  (8). 


154  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

3.    Epistle  to  the  Colossians. 

This  epistle  is  used  thirty-one  times. 
{a)   Chap.  i.  12-17  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  sections  of 
the  epistle. 

"  Giving  thanks  unto  the  Father,  which  hath  made  us  meet  to  be 
partakers  of  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light  (12)  ;  who  hath  de- 
livered us  from  the  power  of  darkness,  and  hath  translated  us  into  the 
kingdom  of  his  dear  Son  (13) :  in  whom  we  have  redemption  through 
his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (14)  :  who  is  the  image  of  the 
invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of  every  creature  (15);  for  by  him  were 
all  things  created,  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and 
invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  dominions,  or  principalities,  or 
powers,  all  things  were  created  by  him,  and  for  him  (16)  :  And  he  is 
before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist"  (17). 

(i)  Ver.  13  is  used  to  prove  that  God  frees  the  sinner 
"from  his  natural  bondage  under  sin  "  (ix.  4)  ;  and  delivers 
from  "bondage  to  Satan  and  dominion  of  sin"  (xx.  i). 
But  this  latter  citation  is  omitted  from  the  American  list. 
The  doctrine  of  the  translation  into  the  kingdom  of  the 
Son  of  God's  love  is  overlooked  as  well  as  the  inheritance 
of  the  saints  in  light. 

{2)  The  Christology  of  vers.  15-17  is  not  grasped.  The 
doctrine  of  the  pre-existent  Christ,  the  special  feature  of 
vers.  15  and  17,  is  entirely  neglected  ;  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
as  creator  of  the  world  in  ver.  16  is  used  (iv.  i)  ;  but  the 
doctrine  that  he  was  creator  of  the  heavenly  intelligences 
and  that  he  was  the  aim  of  the  creation  are  not  used. 

ib)    Chap.  in.  i-io  is  also  overlooked. 

"  If  ye  then  be  risen  with  Christ,  seek  those  things  which  are  above, 
where  Christ  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  God  (i).  Set  your  affections 
on  things  above,  not  on  things  on  the  earth  (2).  For  ye  are  dead,  and 
your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God  (3).  When  Christ,  who  is  our  life, 
shall  appear,  then  shall  ye  also  appear  with  him  in  glory  (4).  Mortify 
therefore  your  members  which  are  upon  the  earth  ;  fornication,  unclean- 
ness,  inordinate  affection,  evil  concupiscence,  and  covetousness,  which 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 55 

is  idolatry  (5);  for  which  things'  sake  the  wrath  of  God  cometh  on 
the  children  of  disobedience  (6)  :  in  the  which  ye  also  walked  some 
time,  when  ye  lived  in  them  (7).  But  now  ye  also  put  off  all  these; 
anger,  wrath,  malice,  blasphemy,  filthy  communication  out  of  your 
mouth  (8).  Lie  not  one  to  another,  seeing  that  ye  have  put  off  the 
old  man  with  his  deeds  (9)  ;  and  have  put  on  the  new  man,  which  is 
renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of  him  that  created  him  "  (10). 

The  only  verse  used  by  the  Confession  is  ver.  lo  (iv.  2). 
This  passage  points  to  the  enthroned  Christ  as  the  supreme 
object  of  affection  and  regard  ;  and  looks  to  his  second 
advent  for  the  glorification  of  those  whose  life  is  in  him. 
It  also  teaches  the  doctrine  of  mortification  as  a  part  of 
repentance,  and  of  vivification  and  transformation  into  the 
image  of  Christ.  All  of  these  doctrines  of  this  epistle  are 
overlooked,  and  are  neglected  by  the  Confession  in  other 
passages  of  Scripture. 

C.    T/ie  Pastoral  Epistles. 

The  last  group  of  epistles  of  Paul  is  called  the  pastoral 
epistles,  embracing  the  two  epistles  to  Timothy  and  the 
epistle  to  Titus.  There  are  sixty-three  citations  from  this 
group. 

1.  The  first  epistle  to  Timothy  is  used  thirty  times.  We 
note  the  significant  omissions  :  — 

"Who  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  unto  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth''  (ii.  4).  "For  every  creature  of  God  is  good,  and 
nothing  to  be  refused,  if  it  be  received  with  thanksgiving ;  for  it  is 
sanctified  by  the  word  of  God  and  prayer"  (iv.  4,  5). 

2.  The  second  epistle  of  Timothy  is  used  thirteen  times. 
We  note  the  omissions  of  the  following :  — 

"For  I  know  whom  I  have  believed,  and  am  persuaded  that  he  is 
able  to  keep  that  which  I  have  committed  unto  him  against  that  day" 
(i.  12).  "  Henceforth  there  is  laid  up  for  me  a  crown  of  righteousness, 
which  the  Lord,  the  righteous  judge,  shall  give  me  at  that  day  ;  and  not 
to  me  only,  but  unto  all  them  also  that  love  his  appearing"  (iv,  8). 


156  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVLSE  ? 

3.    The  epistle  to  Titus  is  used  twenty  times. 
{a)   CJiap.  a.  9-14  contains  important  doctrine.     We  shall 
use  it  in  the  Revised  Version. 

"Exhort  servants  to  be  in  subjection  to  their  own  masters,  and  to 
be  well-pleasing  to  them  in  all  things  ;  not  gainsaying  (9)  ;  not  purloin- 
ing, but  shewing  all  good  fidelity ;  that  they  may  adorn  the  doctrine  of 
God  our  Saviour  in  all  things  (10).  For  the  grace  of  God  hath  ap- 
peared, bringing  salvation  to  all  men  (11),  instructing  us,  to  the  intent 
that,  denying  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  we  should  live  soberly  and 
righteously  and  godly  in  this  present  world  (12)  ;  looking  for  the  blessed 
hope  and  appearing  of  the  glory  of  our  great  God  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ  (13);  who  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem  us  from 
all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a  people  for  his  own  possession, 
zealous  of  good  works"  (14). 

Vers.  9-12  are  used  to  prove  that  by  good  works  believ- 
ers "adorn  the  profession  of  the  Gospel"  (xvi.  2).  Vers. 
II,  12,  14,  are  used  to  prove  that  assurance  of  grace  does 
not  incline  men  to  looseness  (xviii.  3).  Ver.  14  is  cited  to 
prove  that  the  elect  are  redeemed  by  Christ  (iii.  6).  Ver. 
14  is  cited  to  prove  that  Christ  has  given  believers  free- 
dom from  the  guilt  of  sin  (xx.  i.).  The  important  Chris- 
tological  doctrines  of  the  passage  have  been  neglected,  and 
"the  grace  of  God  bringing  salvation  to  all  men"  has 
escaped  attention. 

D.    TJie  Later  Patilinism. 

A  disciple  of  Paul  gives  the  latest  Biblical  phase  of 
Paulinism  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrezvs.  This  epistle  is 
used  eighty-four  times  in  the  Confession,  against  seventy- 
six  citations  from  the  epistles  and  apocalypse  of  John. 

{a)  We  have  first  to  notice  the  use  of  i.  1-3.  Ver.  i  is 
used  to  prove  that  "  it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times, 
and  in  divers  manners,  to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare 
that  his  will  unto  his  Church"  (i.  i).     Vers.  1-2  arc  used 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 5/ 

to  prove  that  "those  former  ways  of  God's  reveaUng  his 
will  unto  his  people  being  now  ceased"  (i.  i).  Ver.  2  is 
used  to  prove  that  the  Son  took  part  in  the  creation  of  the 
world  (iv.  i),  and  that  the  Son  is  the  head  of  all  things 
(viii.  i).  Ver.  3  is  used  to  prove  that  '*  God  doth  uphold 
all  creatures,  actions,  and  things  "  (v.  i).  But  the  great 
Christological  doctrine  of  vers.  2-3,  as  wrought  out  more 
distinctly  in  the  Revised  Version  :  "  through  whom  also 
he  made  the  worlds  (ages) ;  who  being  the  effulgence  of 
his  glory,  and  the  very  image  of  his  substance,  and  uphold- 
ing all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,"  are  overlooked 
here,  as  in  Colossians  i.  15-16  and  elsewhere. 

{b)  Chap.  it.  is  sadly  neglected.  There  is  but  one  cita- 
tion from  it,  and  that  of  vers.  14,  16,  17,  to  prove  that  ''the 
Son  of  God  did  take  upon  him  man's  nature,  with  all  the 
essential  properties  and  common  infirmities  thereof"  (viii. 
2) ;  but  this  citation  is  reduced  in  the  American  list  to 
ver.  17  alone.  We  quote  vers.  9-11  and  14-18  in  order 
to  show  what  important  Christological  and  soteriological 
doctrines  are  overlooked. 

"  But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels  for 
the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honour ;  that  he  by  the 
grace  of  God  should  taste  death  for  every  man  (9).  For  it  became 
him,  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things,  in  bringing 
many  sons  into  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation  perfect 
through  sufferings  (10).  For  both  he  that  sanctifieth  and  they  who 
are  sanctified  are  all  of  one  :  for  which  cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call 
them  brethren"  (11). 

"  For  as  much  then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood, 
he  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same ;  that  through  death  he 
might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil  (14)  ; 
and  deliver  them  who  through  fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime  subject 
to  bondage  (15).  For  verily  he  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels ; 
but  he  took  on  him  the  seed  of  Abraham  (16).  Wherefore  in  all 
things  it  behoved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that  he 
might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to 


158  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

God,  to  make  reconciliation  lor  the  sins  of  the  people  (17).  For  in 
that  he  himself  hath  suffered  being  tempted,  he  is  able  to  succour  them 
that  are  tempted  "  (18). 

{c)  Chap.  iv.  14-16  is  also  an  important  Christological 
passage. 

"  Seeing  then  that  we  have  a  great  high  priest,  that  is  passed  into 
the  heavens,  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  let  us  hold  fast  our  profession  (14). 
For  we  have  not  an  high  priest  which  cannot  be  touched  with  the 
feeling  of  our  infirmities ;  but  was  in  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are, 
yet  without  sin  (15).  Let  us  therefore  come  boldly  unto  the  throne  of 
grace,  that  we  may  obtain  mercy,  and  find  grace  to  help  in  time  of 
need."  (16). 

Vers.  14  and  16  are  cited  to  prove  that  Christians  have 
"  greater  boldness  of  access  to  the  throne  of  grace  "  (xx.  i) ; 
and  ver.  15  is  cited  to  prove  that  Christ  took  upon  him 
man's  nature  ''with  all  the  essential  properties  and  com- 
mon infirmities  thereof,  yet  without  sin  "  (viii.  2).  But 
no  use  whatever  is  made  of  the  doctrine  of  the  heavenly 
mediation  of  our  high  priest  and  of  his  sympathy  and  help 
for  the  needy  and  the  tempted. 

{d)  The  important  doctrine  contained  in  chap,  v,  7-9  is 
passed  by. 

"Who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  when  he  had  offered  up  prayers  and 
supplications  with  strong  crying  and  tears  unto  him  that  was  able  to 
save  him  from  death,  and  was  heard  in  that  he  feared  (7)  ;  though  he 
were  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered 
(8)  ;  and  being  made  perfect,  he  became  the  author  of  eternal  salva- 
tion unto  all  them  that  obey  him  (9)  ;  called  of  God  an  high  priest 
after  the  order  of  Melchisedec  "  (10). 

ie)  Chap.  xi.  is  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  epistle. 
The  definition  of  faith  in  the  opening  verse,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  future  life  in  the  closing  verses,  are  both 
passed  by. 

"  Now  faith  is  the  substance  of  things  hoped  for,  the  evidence  of 
things  not  seen  (i).     And  these  all,  having  obtained  a  good  report 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 59 

through  faith,  received  not  the  promise  (39)  :  God  having  provided 
some  better  thing  for  us,  that  they  without  us  should  not  be  made 
perfect''  (40). 

(/)  The  doctrine  of  the  church  in  the  middle  state  is 
grandly  set  forth  in  xii.  22-24. 

"But  ye  are  come  unto  mount  Sion,  and  unto  the  city  of  the  liv- 
ing God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  and  to  an  innumerable  company  of 
angels  (22),  to  the  general  assembly  and  church  of  the  firstborn,  which 
are  written  in  heaven,  and  to  God  the  Judge  of  all,  and  to  the  spirits 
of  just  men  made  perfect  (23),  and  to  Jesus  the  mediator  of  the  new 
covenant,  and  to  the  blood  of  sprinkling,  that  speaketh  better  things 
than  that  of  Abel"  (24). 

Vers.  22-28  are  cited  to  prove  the  superiority  of  the 
new  covenant  to  the  old  (vii.  6).  Ver.  24  is  cited  to  prove 
that  Christ  was  ''thoroughly  furnished  to  execute  the 
ofifice  of  a  mediator  and  surety"  (viii.  3).  Ver.  23  is  cited 
to  prove  that  "  the  will  of  man  is  made  perfectly  and  im- 
mutably free  to  good  alone,  in  the  state  of  glory  only" 
(ix.  5).  But  this  is  omitted  from  the  American  list.  Ver. 
23  is  also  cited  to  prove  "the  souls  of  the  righteous  being 
then  made  perfect  in  holiness"  (xxxii.  i).  But  there  is  no 
further  use  made  of  this  passage  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
middle  state  or  in  the  doctrine  of  the  church. 

11.    The  Confession  and  Peter. 

We  shall  consider  under  this  head  the  two  epistles  of 
Peter,  and  the  epistle  of  Jude,  which  is  kindred  to  Peter. 

I.  I  Peter,  There  are  thirty-one  citations  from  this 
epistle. 

ia)  Chap.  i.  2-5  is  used  in  the  Confession,  but  in  a 
very  unsatisfactory  manner. 

"  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father,  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  biood 


l6o  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

of  Jesus  Christ :  Grace  unto  you,  and  peace,  be  multiplied  (2 ),  Blessed 
be  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  according  to 
his  abundant  mercy  hath  begotten  us  again  unto  a  lively  hope  by  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead  (3),  to  an  inheritance  incor- 
ruptible, and  undefiled,  and  that  fadeth  not  away,  reserved  in  heaven 
for  you  (4),  who  are  kept  by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto 
salvation  ready  to  be  revealed  in  the  last  time  "  (5). 

Ver.  2  is  used  to  prove  that  *'  as  God  hath  appointed 
the  elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  he,  by  the  eternal  and  most 
free  purpose  of  his  will,  foreordained  all  the  means  there- 
unto "  (iii.  6). 

Ver.  2  is  used  to  prove  that  ''  God  did,  from  all  eternity, 
decree  to  justify  all  the  elect "  (xi.  4).  Vers.  3-4  are  cited 
to  prove  that  believers  are  "heirs  of  everlasting  salvation" 
(xii.  i).  This  citation  is  reduced  in  the  American  text  to 
ver.  4.  Ver.  5  is  used  to  prove  the  perseverance  of  the 
saints  (xvii.  1).  These  verses  are  used,  but  the  important 
clauses  —  ''sanctifi cation  of  the  spirit,"  **unto  obedience," 
"sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,"  "abundant  mercy," 
"begotten  us,"  "lively  hope,"  and  "salvation  ready  to  be 
revealed  in  the  last  time  "  —  are  all  neglected. 

(b)    Chap.  i.  18-20  is  also  used  inadequately. 

'*  Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible 
things,  as  silver  and  gold,  from  your  vain  conversation  received  by 
tradition  from  your  fathers  (18)  ;  but  with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ, 
as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot  (19)  :  who  verily  was 
foreordained  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  but  was  manifest  in 
these  last  times  for  you  "  (20) . 

Vers.  19-20  are  cited  to  prove  that  "God  did,  from  all 
eternity,  decree  to  justify  all  the  elect  "  (xi.  4).  Vers. 
19-20  are  also  cited  to  prove  "the  mediator  between  God 
and  man"  (viii.  i).  Ver.  18  is  used  to  prove  that  good 
works  are  "  not  such  as  are  devised  by  men  out  of  blind 
zeal,  or  upon  any  pretence  of  good  intention  "  (xvi.  i).  No 
further  use  is  made  of  this  wonderful  passage,  which  is  like 
a  breath  from 'heaven. 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  l6l 

(c)  We  are  not  surprised,  therefore,  that  i.  13-17,  21-23, 
are  passed  over. 

♦'  Wherefore  gird  up  the  loins  of  your  mind,  be  sober,  and  hope  to 
the  end  for  the  grace  that  is  to  be  brought  unto  you  at  the  revelation 
of  Jesus  Christ  (13)  ;  as  obedient  children,  not  fashioning  yourselves 
according  to  the  former  lusts  in  your  ignorance  (14)  :  but  as  he  which 
hath  called  you  is  holy,  so  be  ye  holy  in  all  manner  of  conversation 
(15);  because  it  is  written.  Be  ye  holy;  for  I  am  holy  (16).  And 
if  ye  call  on  the  Father,  who  without  respect  of  persons  judgeth 
according  to  every  man's  work,  pass  the  time  of  your  sojourning  here 
in  fear"  (17).  .  .  .  "  Seeing  ye  have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the 
truth  through  the  Spirit  unto  unfeigned  love  of  the  brethren,  see  that 
ye  love  one  another  with  a  pure  heart  fervently  (22)  :  being  born  again, 
not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of  God,  which 
liveth  and  abideth  forever"  (23). 

2.    T/ie  second  epistle  of  Peter  is  cited  eighteen  times. 

The  apocalypse  of  Peter  in  chap.  Hi.  1-14  is  cited  but 
once,  to  prove  that  "  Christ  would  have  us  to  be  certainly 
persuaded  that  there  shall  be  a  day  of  judgment,  both  to 
deter  all  men  from  sin,  and  for  the  greater  consolation  of 
the  godly  in  their  adversity  "  (xxxiii.  3).  But  no  other  use 
is  made  of  these  important  verses. 

"  The  Lord  is  not  slack  concerning  his  promise,  as  some  men  count 
slackness ;  but  is  long-suffering  to  us-ward,  not  willing  that  any  should 
perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance  (9).  But  the  day  of  the 
Lord  will  come  as  a  thief  in  the  night ;  in  the  which  the  heavens  shall 
pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  and  the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent 
heat,  the  earth  also  and  the  works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burned 
up  (10).  Seeing  then  that  all  these  things  shall  be  dissolved,  what 
manner  of  persons  ought  ye  to  be  in  all  holy  conversation  and  godli- 
ness (11),  looking  for  and  hasting  unto  the  coming  of  the  day  of  God, 
wherein  the  heavens  being  on  fire  shall  be  dissolved,  and  the  elements 
shall  melt  with  fervent  heat?  (12)  Nevertheless  we,  according  to  his 
promise,  look  for  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  wherein  dwelleth 
righteousness  (13).  Wherefore,  beloved,  seeing  that  ye  look  for  such 
things,  be  diligent  that  ye  may  be  found  of  him  in  peace,  without  spot, 
and  blameless"  (14). 


l62  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

3.    The  epistle  of  yude  is  cited  nine  times. 
The  finest  passage  is  vers.  20-25. 

"  But  ye,  beloved,  building  up  yourselves  on  your  most  holy  faith, 
praying  in  the  Holy  Ghost  (20),  keep  yourselves  in  the  love  of  God, 
looking  for  the  mercy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  unto  eternal  life  (21). 
And  of  some  have  compassion,  making  a  difference  (22)  :  and  others 
save  with  fear,  pulling  them  out  of  the  fire  ;  hating  even  the  garment 
spotted  by  the  flesh  (23).  Now  unto  him  that  is  able  to  keep  you  from 
falling,  and  to  present  you  faultless  before  the  presence  of  his  glory 
with  exceeding  joy  (24),  to  the  only  wise  God  our  Saviour,  be  glory 
and  majesty,  dominion  and  power,  both  now  and  ever.     Amen  "  (25). 

Vers.  20-21  are  used  to  prove  that  Christians  "ought  to 
be  diligent  in  stirring  up  the  grace  of  God  that  is  in 
them  "  (xvi.  3),  which  is  true,  but  is  hardly  equal  to  the 
teaching  of  the  passage.  Ver.  23  is  used  to  prove  "■  divers 
instructions  of  moral  duties  "  (xix.  3)  ;  but  it  is  thrown  out 
of  the  American  list.  Ver.  23  is  also  used  to  prove  the 
necessity  of  church  censures  (xxx.  3).  Ver.  24  is  used  to 
prove  that  "  the  will  of  man  is  made  perfectly  and  immuta- 
bly free  to  good  alone,  in  the  state  of  glory  only  "  (ix.  5). 
In  other  respects  the  doctrines  of  the  passage  are  over- 
looked. 

III.    TJie  Confession  and  James. 

The  epistle  of  James  is  cited  twenty-one  times. 
{a)  The  following  verses  among  others  are  neglected  in 
chap.  i.  :  — 

"  If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let  him  ask  of  God,  that  giveth  to  all 
men  liberally,  and  upbraideth  not;  and  it  shall  be  given  him"  (5). 
"Blessed  is  the  man  that  endureth  temptation:  for  when  he  is  tried, 
he  shall  receive  the  crown  of  life,  which  the  Lord  hath  promised  to  them 
that  love  him"  (12).  "  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of 
truth,  that  we  should  be  a  kind  of  firstfruits  of  his  creatures"  (18). 
"Pure  religion  and  undefiled  before  God  and  the  Father  is  this.  To 
visit  the  fatherless  and  widows  in  their  affliction,  and  to  keep  himself 
unspotted  from  the  world"  (27). 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 63 

{b)  Chap.  it.  14-26  is  the  most  important  passage  in 
James.  Vers.  17,  22,  26,  are  cited  to  prove  that  "Faith 
is  not  alone  in  the  person  justified,  but  is  ever  accompanied 
with  all  other  saving  graces,  and  is  no  dead  faith,  but  work- 
eth  by  love"  (xi.  i).  Vers.  18,  22,  are  cited  to  prove 
that  "  good  works  are  the  fruits  and  evidences  of  a  true 
and  lively  faith  "  (xvi,  2).  But  this  does  not  adequately 
present  the  apostolic  doctrine  of  the  passage,  and  the  feat- 
ures in  which  the  doctrine  of  James  differs  from  the  doc- 
trine of  Paul. 

{c)  There  are  but  six  citations  of  the  grand  religious  and 
ethical  precepts  of  Chaps,  iii.-v. 

IV.    The  Confession  and  John, 

We  have  here  to  consider  the  Apocalypse,  the  three 
epistles  and  the  Prologue  of  the  Gospel. 

I.    The  Apocalypse  is  cited  twenty-seven  times. 

{a)  Chap.  i.  5-8  is  one  of  the  most  important  in  the 
book. 

"And  from  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  faithful  witness,  and  the  first 
begotten  of  the  dead,  and  the  prince  of  the  kings  of  the  earth.  Unto 
him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood  (5), 
and  hath  made  us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his  Father ;  to  him  be 
glory  and  dominion  for  ever  and  ever.  Amen  (6) .  Behold,  he  cometh 
with  clouds ;  and  every  eye  shall  see  him,  and  they  also  which  pierced 
him  :  and  all  kindreds  of  the  earth  shall  wail  because  of  him.  Even  so, 
Amen  (7).  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  ending, 
saith  the  Lord,  which  is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to  come,  the 
Almighty''  (8). 

This  passage  gives  the  text  of  the  apocalypse  and  sets 
forth  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  the  Messiah  and  of  his 
second  advent.  It  is  very  strange  that  it  should  be  neg- 
lected. The  following  verses  are  also  overlooked  with 
their  invaluable  Christology  :  — 


164  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

"And  when  I  saw  him,  I  fell  at  his  feet  as  dead.  And  he  laid  his 
right  hand  upon  me,  saying  unto  me,  Fear  not ;  I  am  the  first  and  the 
last  (17)  :  I  am  he  that  liveth,  and  was  dead ;  and,  behold,  I  am  alive 
for  ever  more,  Amen;  and  have  the  keys  of  hell  and  of  death"  (18). 

{b)  Chap.  V.  9-10  gives  the  new  song  of  the  redeemed, 
which  is  overlooked  by  the  Confession. 

"And  they  sung  a  new  song,  saying.  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the 
book,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof:  For  thou  wast  slain,  and  hast 
redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood,  out  of  every  kindred,  and  tongue, 
and  people,  and  nation  (9)  ;  and  hast  made  us  unto  our  God  kings  and 
priests :  and  we  shall  reign  on  the  earth"  (10). 

if)  Chap.  vi.  9-1 1  with  its  doctrines  of  the  martyrs  and 
of  the  middle  state  is  neglected. 

{d)  Chap.  vii.  1 1-17,  one  of  the  most  precious  passages, 
was  passed  by. 

{e)  Chap.  xii.  6,  14  is  used  to  prove  that  the  Catholic 
Church  hath  been  sometimes  more,  sometimes  less  visible 
(xxv.  4)  ;  but  this  is  the  only  use  made  of  the  chapter  that 
describes  the  ascension  of  the  Messiah,  the  overthrow  of 
the  devil  and  evil  angels,  and  the  joy  of  the  martyrs. 

(/)  The  only  use  made  of  xiv.  13  is  to  prove  that 
prayers  are  not  to  be  made  for  the  dead  (xxi.  4).  This  is 
a  misinterpretation  of  the  passage  :  — 

"  And  I  heard  a  voice  from  heaven  saying  unto  me,  Write,  Blessed 
are  the  dead  which  die  in  the  Lord  from  henceforth  :  Yea,  saith  the 
Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their  labours  ;  and  their  works  do  follow 
them"  (13). 

This  verse  has  important  instruction  for  the  doctrine  of 
the  middle  state  that  is  not  used  in  the  Confession. 

{g)  No  use  is  made  of  the  splendid  description  of  the 
advent  of  the  King  of  Kings,  the  Word  of  God  of  chap,  xix., 
with  its  important  Christological  features. 

{H)    No  use  is  made  of  chap,  xx.,  with  its  doctrine  of  the 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  I65 

millennium,  binding  of  Satan,  resurrection  of  the  martyrs, 
and  final  judgment. 

{i)  No  use  is  made  of  the  new  heaven,  new  earth,  and 
New  Jerusalem  of  chaps,  xxi.-xxii.  The  only  citations  of 
these  closing  chapters  are  as  follows  :  (i)  Vers.  18-19  ^^^ 
cited  to  prove  that  all  the  Biblical  books  of  the  Canon 
"  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  to  be  the  rule  of  faith 
and  life  "  (i.  2),  which  is  certainly  more  than  the  passage 
means. 

(2)  Ver.  20  is  cited  to  prove  that  we  should  be  '*  ever 
prepared  to  say,  Come,  Lord  Jesus,  come  quickly" 
(xxxiii.  3). 

(3)  But  there  is  no  use  whatever  of  these  precious 
verses  12-17  •  — 

"And,  behold,  I  come  quickly;  and  my  reward  is  with  me,  to  give 
every  man  according  as  his  work  shall  be  (12).  I  am  Alpha  and 
Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end,  the  first  and  the  last  (13).  Blessed 
are  they  that  do  his  commandments,  that  they  may  have  right  to  the 
tree  of  life,  and  may  enter  in  through  the  gates  into  the  city  (14).  For 
without  are  dogs,  and  sorcerers,  and  whoremongers,  and  murderers, 
and  idolaters,  and  whosoever  loveth  and  maketh  a  lie  (15).  I  Jesus 
have  sent  mine  angel  to  testify  unto  you  these  things  in  the  churches. 
I  am  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David,  and  the  bright  and  morning 
star  (16).  And  the  Spirit  and  the  bride  say,  Come.  And  let  him  that 
heareth  say.  Come.  And  let  him  that  is  athirst  come.  And  whosoever 
will,  let  him  take  the  water  of  life  freely"  (17). 

2.  The  first  epistle  of  John  is  cited  forty-six  times,  but 
there  are  many  omissions  and  misconceptions. 

a.    Chap.  i.  6-9  presents  several  points  of  doctrine. 

"  If  we  say  that  we  have  fellowship  with  him,  and  walk  in  darkness, 
we  lie,  and  do  not  the  truth  (6)  :  but  if  we  walk  in  the  light,  as  he  is  in 
the  light,  we  have  fellowship  one  with  another,  and  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin  (7).  If  we  say  that  we  have 
no  sin,  we  deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  us  (8).  If  we  con- 
fess our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins,  and  to  cleanse 
us  from  all  unrighteousness"  (9). 


l66  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

Vers.  6  and  7  are  cited  to  prove  that  assurance  of  grace 
does  not  incline  men  to  looseness  (xviii.  3).  But  this  is 
omitted  from  the  American  list.  Vers.  7,  9,  are  cited  to 
prove  that  God  doth  continue  to  forgive  the  sins  of  those 
that  are  justified  (xi.  5),  but  this  is  reduced  to  ver.  9  in  the 
American  list.  Ver.  8  is  cited  to  prove  that  this  corrup- 
tion of  nature  during  this  life  doth  remain  in  those  that  are 
regenerated  (vi.  5),  but  this  is  omitted  from  the  American 
list.  Ver.  9  is  cited  to  prove  that  the  man  forsaking  sin 
will  find  mercy  (xv.  6).  But  the  walking  in  the  light,  fel- 
lowship one  with  another,  the  cleansing  blood  of  Christ, 
and  cleansing  from  all  unrighteousness,  are  all  neglected. 

{b)  Chap,  in,  1-3  is  very  precious. 

•'  Behold,  what  manner  of  love  the  Father  hath  bestowed  upon  us, 
that  we  should  be  called  the  sons  of  God :  therefore  the  world  knoweth 
,  us  not,  because  it  knew  him  not  (i).  Beloved,  now  are  we  the  sons  of 
God,  and  it  doth  not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be :  but  we  know  that, 
when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him ;  for  we  shall  see  him  as  he 
is  (2).  And  every  man  that  hath  this  hope  in  him  purifieth  himself, 
even  as  he  is  pure  "  (3). 

Ver.  2  is  cited  to  prove  that  ''the  will  of  man  is  made 
perfectly  and  immutably  free  to  good  alone,  in  the  state  of 
glory  only "  (ix.  5).  Vers.  2-3  are  cited  to  prove  that  as- 
surance of  grace  does  not  incline  men  to  looseness  (xviii. 
3).  Thus  the  Westminster  divines  neglect  this  splendid 
passage,  and  even  their  citations  have  been  stricken  out  of 
the  American  edition  of  the  Confession. 

{c)  Chap.  iv.  is  a  wonderful  chapter  of  Love.  The  heart 
of  it  is  :  — 

"He  that  loveth  not  knoweth  not  God;  for  God  is  love  (8).  In 
this  was  manifested  the  love  of  God  toward  us,  because  that  God  sent 
his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world,  that  we  might  live  through 
him  (9).  Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us, 
and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  (10).  Beloved,  if 
God  so  loved  us,  we  ought  also  to  love  one  another  (11).     No  man 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  167 

hath  seen  God  at  any  time.  If  we  love  one  another,  God  dwelleth  in 
us,  and  his  love  is  perfected  in  us  (12).  Hereby  know  we  that  we 
dwell  in  him,  and  he  in  us,  because  he  hath  given  us  of  his  Spirit  (13). 
And  we  have  seen  and  do  testify  that  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be 
the  Saviour  of  the  world  (14).  Whosoever  shall  confess  that  Jesus  is 
the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him,  and  he  in  God  (15).  And  we 
have  known  and  believed  the  love  that  God  hath  to  us.  God  is  love ; 
and  he  that  dwelleth  in  love  dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in  him  (16). 
Herein  is  our  love  made  perfect,  that  we  may  have  boldness  in  the  day 
of  judgment :  because  as  he  is,  so  are  we  in  this  world  (17).  There  is 
no  fear  in  love ;  but  perfect  love  casteth  out  fear :  because  fear  hath 
torment.  He  that  feareth  is  not  made  perfect  in  love  (18).  We  love 
him,  because  he  first  loved  us  "  (19). 

Vers.  8  and  i6  are  cited  to  prove  that  God  is  ''most  lov- 
ing" (ii.  i);  but  in  the  American  list  ver.  i6  is  omitted. 
Ver.  13  is  cited  to  prove  that  the  Christian,  ''enabled  by 
the  Spirit,  knows  the  things  which  are  freely  given  him  of 
God"  (xviii.  3).  Ver.  18  is  used  to  prove  that  Christians 
"yield  obedience  unto  God,  not  out  of  slavish  fear'*  (xx.  i). 
No  further  use  is  made  of  these  divine  verses. 

3.  In  the  second  epistle  of  yohn,  vers.  9-1 1  arq  used  to 
prove  that  "  to  assert  salvation  for  any  of  the  heathen  is 
very  pernicious,  and  to  be  detested"  (x.  4).  Vers.  lo-ii 
are  cited  twice  to  prove  the  lawfulness  of  both  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  civil  discipline  (xx.  4)  ;  but  these  are  omitted  from 
the  American  list.  These  citations  are  all  perversions  of 
Scripture. 

4.  There  is  no  citation  from  the  third  epistle  of  yohn. 

5.  In  the  Prologue  of  John  s  Gospel  we  notice  the  neg- 
lect of  the  following  passage  :  — 

'•  In  him  was  life  ;  and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men  (4).  And  the 
light  shineth  in  darkness;  and  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not  (5). 
There  was  a  man  sent  from  God,  whose  name  was  John  (6).  The 
same  came  for  a  witness,  to  bear  witness  of  the  Light,  that  all  men 
through  him  might  believe  (7).  He  was  not  that  Light,  but  was  sent 
to  bear  witness  of  that  Light  (8).  That  was  the  true  Light,  which 
lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world"  (9). 


l68  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

Upon  this  passage  the  Quakers  built  their  doctrine  of 
the  Light  of  Redemption  shining  in  all  parts  of  the  earth, 
a  doctrine  that  the  Westminster  divines  could  not  find 
here  or  elsewhere. 

V.    The  Co7ifessio7i  a?id  the  Book  of  Acts. 

The  book  of  Acts  contains  material  from  the  several 
different  types  of  apostolic  doctrine.  We  shall  not  at- 
tempt to  distinguish  them.  There  are  many  citations 
from  the  book,  but  there  are  many  striking  omissions  and 
misapplications.     We  can  only  mention  a  few  of  them. 

(a)  There  is  no  reference  in  the  Confession  to  the 
advent  of  the  Divine  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or 
to  any  of  the  Christophanies  granted  to  Peter,  Stephen, 
or  Paul. 

(d)  Chap.  V.  31  is  one  of  the  most  important  verses  in 
the  book. 

"  Him  hath  God  exalted  with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a 
Saviour,  for  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgiveness  of  sins." 

It  is  very  strange  that  it  was  not  cited. 

{c)    It  is  noteworthy  that  Chap  ;r.  35  was  overlooked. 

'•But  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteous- 
ness, is  accepted  with  him." 

{d)  One  of  the  grandest  sections  of  Paul's  discourse  at 
Athens  is  the  following  {xvii.  26-29)  •  ~~ 

"And  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on 
all  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  hath  determined  the  times  before  ap- 
pointed, and  the  bounds  of  their  habitation  (26)  ;  that  they  should 
seek  the  Lord,  if  haply  they  might  feel  after  him,  and  find  him,  though 
he  be  not  far  from  every  one  of  us  (27)  :  for  in  him  we  live,  and  move, 
and  have  our  being ;  as  certain  also  of  your  own  poets  have  said,  For 
we  are  also  his  offspring  (28).  For  as  much  then  as  we  are  the  off- 
spring of  God,  we  ought  not  to  think  that  the  Godhead  is  like  unto 
gold,  or  silver,  or  stone,  graven  by  art  and  man's  device"  (29). 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  169 

Vers.  26,  28  are  cited  to  prove  that  God  doth  "direct, 
dispose,  and  govern  all  creatures,  actions,  and  things " 
(v.  i).  Ver.  26  is  cited  to  prove  that  our  first  parents 
"being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the  guilt  of  this  sin  is 
imputed  to  all  their  posterity"  (vi.  3).  This  is  all  that 
the  Westminster  divines  could  find  in  this  sublime  con- 
ception of  the  apostle.  He  sees  that  all  men  are  of  one 
blood,  the  offspring  of  God,  their  life  and  being  all  in  God, 
who  is  not  far  from  every  one  of  them,  and  who  may  be 
found  by  any  who  will  feel  after  him.  It  is  just  this 
thought  of  the  apostle  that  the  Westminster  divines  ig- 
nored, and  that  modern  Presbyterians  desire  to  put  into 
their  Confession  of  Faith. 

VI.    The  Confession  and  Jesus. 

The  theology  of  the  Westminster  Confession  is  Pauline 
in  type.  The  types  of  Peter,  James,  and  John  are  neg- 
lected. The  fundamental  type  of  Christ  himself  is  less 
used  than  the  epistles  to  the  Romans  and  i  Corinthians. 
We  shall  call  attention  to  some  specimens  of  the  use  of 
proof-texts  from  the  Gospels. 

I .    The  Gospel  of  Matthew. 

This  gospel  is  cited  109  times. 

{a)  The  Se7'mon  on  the  Moimt,  the  marrow  of  the  Gospel, 
is  very  much  neglected  by  the  Confession. 

(i)  Only  one  of  the  Beatitudes  is  used,  and  that  not  for 
the  grace  of  meekness,  but  for  the  blessedness  of  inherit- 
ing the  earth  which  is  then  given  to  all  the  obedient. 
(xix.  6). 

(2)  Vers.  13-15  are  not  used,  but  ver.  16  is  used  once. 
Ver.  17  is  used  four  times;  ver.  18,  thrice;  and  ver.  19, 
once,  —  all  emphasizing  the  obligation  of  the  law.  Thus 
in  this  exposition  of  the  relation  of  law  and  Gospel  the 


1 70  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

Westminster  divines  neglect  the  Gospel,  and  emphasize 
the  law.  {3)  The  Saviour's  exposition  of  murder  and  its 
deep  spiritual  application  is  passed  over,  and  also  the  law 
of  adultery,  except  so  far  as  divorce  is  concerned,  in  vers. 
31-32.  The  law  of  the  oath  is  used  in  vers.  34,  37.  The 
exposition  of  the  Lex  talionis  is  used,  in  part,  in  vers.  38- 
39.  (4)  The  grand  conclusion  of  this  chapter,  vers.  43-48, 
is  entirely  neglected. 

"  Ye  have  heard  that  it  hath  been  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour, 
and  hate  thine  enemy  (43).  But  I  say  unto  you,  Love  your  enemies, 
bless  them  that  curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate  you,  and  pray  for 
them  which  despitefully  use  you,  and  persecute  you  (44)  ;  that  ye  may 
be  the  children  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven :  for  he  maketh  his 
sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just 
and  on  the  unjust  (45).  For  if  ye  love  them  which  love  you,  what 
reward  have  ye?  do  not  even  the  publicans  the  same?  (46).  And  if  ye 
salute  your  brethren  only,  what  do  ye  more  than  others?  do  not  even 
the  publicans  so  ?  (47) .  Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect"  (48). 

This  section  is  one  of  the  most  sublime  in  the  Bible  as 
to  the  law  of  love  and  Godlike  perfection.  No  system  of 
theology  can  be  complete  that  omits  such  doctrines  as  these. 

(5)  The  laws  of  almsgiving,  prayer,  and  fasting  are  used, 
in  part,  in  chap.  vi.  2,  5-6,  11-12,  14-16.  But  the  exhor- 
tations of  vers.  19-24,  beginning  with,  "Lay  not  up  for 
yourselves  treasures  upon  earth,"  and  closing  with,  "  Ye 
cannot  serve  God  and  mammon,"  are  omitted.  The  doc- 
trine of  Providence  in  vers.  25-32  is  used,  in  part,  in  ver. 
30  twice,  and  ver.  32  once. 

(6)  The  last  chapter  is  not  used  on  its  Gospel  side,  but 
only  on  its  legal  side.  The  only  verses  used  in  this  chap- 
ter are  ver.  6  (twice),  ver.  22  (twice),  and  ver.  23  (once). 
The  law  against  judgment  is  given  in  vers.  1-5. 

"Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged  (i).  For  with  what  judgment  ye 
judge,  ye  shall  be  judged  :  and  with  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  I/I 

measured  to  you  again  (2).  And  why  beholdest  thou  the  mote  that  is 
in  thy  brother's  eye,  but  considerest  not  the  beam  that  is  in  thine  own 
eye?  (3).  Or  wilt  thou  say  to  thy  brother,  Let  me  pull  out  the  mote  out 
of  thine  eye  ;  and,  behold,  a  beam  is  in  thine  own  eye?  (4).  Thou  hypo- 
crite, first  cast  out  the  beam  out  of  thine  own  eye  ;  and  then  shalt  thou 
see  clearly  to  cast  out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye"  (5). 

This  law  Tolstoi  regards  as  one  of  the  greatest  revela- 
tions of  Jesus  Christ,  and  he  rightly  charges  the  Christian 
world  with  neglecting  it.  The  Westminster  divines  share 
in  this  guilt  in  their  Confession,  and  yet  they  use  the 
following  precept  twice  :  — 

"  Give  not  that  which  is  holy  unto  the  dogs,  neither  cast  ye  your 
pearls  before  swine,  lest  they  trample  them  under  their  feet,  and  turn 
again  and  rend  you  "  (6) . 

The  next  section,  the  joy  of  the  Christian  world  (vers. 
7-12),  is  not  used  at  all. 

"Ask,  and  it  shall  be  given  you;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find;  knock, 
and  it  shall  be  opened  unto  you  (7)  :  for  every  one  that  asketh  receiveth ; 
and  he  that  seeketh  findeth  ;  and  to  him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be 
opened  (8).  Or  what  man  is  there  of  you,  whom  if  his  son  ask  bread, 
will  he  give  him  a  stone?  (9).  Or  if  he  ask  a  fish,  will  he  give  him  a 
serpent?  ( 10).  If  ye  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto 
your  children,  how  much  more  shall  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven 
give  good  gifts  to  them  that  ask  him?  (u).  *  Therefore  all  things  what- 
soever ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to  them :  for 
this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets  "  (12). 

Vers.  13-20  are  not  used,  with  their  exhortation  to  enter 
the  strait  gate,  and  to  fruitfulness  in  well-doing.  In  the 
section,  vers.  21-29,  only  the  verses  setting  forth  the  re- 
jection of  the  workers  of  iniquity  are  used,  but  those  setting 
forth  the  rewards  of  the  pious  are  not  used. 

(7)  It  is  well  known  that  these  passages  of  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  are  for  the  most  part  scattered  in  various 
places  in  Luke.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  passages 
neglected  in  Matthew  are  also  neglected  in  Luke.     There 


1/2  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

is  not  a  single  citation  from  Luke  vi.,  which  gives  his  ver- 
sion of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

{b)  The  second  great  discourse  of  Jesus  given  in  Mat- 
thew is  the  commission  of  the  apostles,  chap.  x.  Of  this, 
only  vers.  28-3 1  are  used. 

{c)    Chap.  xi.  27-30  are  wonderful  verses. 

"Alt  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father:  and  no  man 
knoweth  the  Son,  but  the  Father  ;  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father, 
save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will  reveal  him  (27). 
Come  unto  me  all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give 
you  rest  (28).  Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me ;  for  I  am 
meek  and  lowly  in  heart:  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls  (29). 
For  my  yoke  is  easy,  and  my  burden  is  light "  (30) . 

They  are  not  used  in  the  Confession. 

{d)  The  parables  of  the  kingdom  are  given  in  Matthew 
xiii.  Orly  vers.  12,  19-21,  24-30,  40-42,  47,  are  used; 
and  this  selection  shows  a  preference  for  the  dark  side  of 
the  kingdom.  The  good  and  fruitful  seed  is  ignored. 
The  tares  are  dwelt  upon.  The  burning  of  the  tares  in 
the  fire  is  twice  referred  to.  No  use  is  made  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  kingdom  in  its  planting,  and  marvellous 
growth,  or  that  it  is  the  most  precious  of  all  things,  or  of 
the  beatitudes  of  the  righteous.  It  is  quite  characteristic 
that,  of  the  three  following  verses,  they  use  only  vers.  41 
and  42. 

"  The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather 
out  of  his  kingdom  all  things  that  offend,  and  them  which  do  in- 
iquity (41)  ;  and  shall  cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  fire  :  there  shall  be 
wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth  (42).  Then  shall  the  righteous  shine 
forth  as  the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Father.  Who  hath  ears  to 
hear,  let  him  hear"  (43). 

{e)  In  chap.  xvi.  only  vers.  18-19  are  used.  Ver.  19  is 
used  to  prove  that  civil  magistrates  may  not  assume  the 
power  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (xxiii.  3),  and 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 73 

to  prove  that  those  keys  are  committed  to  the  church 
officers  appointed  by  Christ  (xxx.  2).  Ver.  18  is  used  to 
prove  that  there  shall  always  be  a  church  on  earth  (xxv.  5). 
But  the  Roman  Catholic,  or  indeed  any  careful  exegete, 
may  well  question  the  use  of  Peter's  commission,  either  as 
against  the  civil  magistrates,  or  in  favor  of  ruling  elders  ; 
and  whatever  our  interpretation  of  ver.  18  may  be,  there 
is  something  more  in  it  than  the  Westminster  divines 
found.  Moreover,  we  have  a  right  to  complain  that  they 
paid  no  attention  to  Peter's  confession,  ''Thou  art  the 
Christ,  the  son  of  the  living  God"  (16),  or  to  the  law  of 
cross-bearing  in  the  following  verses  :  — 

"  If  any  man  will  come  after  me,  let  him  deny  himself,  and  take  up 
his  cross,  and  follow  me  (24) .  For  whosoever  will  save  his  life  shall 
lose  it:  and  whosoever  will  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find  it  (25). 
For  what  is  a  man  profited,  if  he  shall  gain  the  whole  world,  and  lose 
his  own  soul?  or  what  shall  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  soul?  (26). 
For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father  with  his 
angels  ;  and  then  he  shall  reward  every  man  according  to  his  works  " 
(27). 

(/)  A  similar  fault  may  be  found  with  their  use  of 
chap,  xviii.  The  only  portion  cited  is  vers.  1 5-20.  Vers. 
15-17  are  used  to  prove  the  lawfulness  of  the  censures 
of  the  church  (xx.  4)  ;  but  this  passage  is  omitted  from 
the  American  list.  Ver.  17  is  used  to  prove  that  the 
civil  magistrate  may  not  assume  the  power  of  the  keys 
(xxiii.  3).  This  is  also  omitted  from  the  American  list. 
Vers.  17-18  are  used  to  prove  the  power  of  the  keys  in 
the  hands  of  church  officers  (xxx.  2).  Ver.  17  is  cited  to 
prove  the  right  of  excommunication  (xxx.  4).  Vers.  17-20 
are  cited  to  prove  the  authority  of  synods  and  councils 
(xxxi.  3).     This  also  is  omitted  in  the  American  list. 

It  will  strike  most  readers  that  this  is  a  very  strange 
use  of  one  of  the  most  wonderful  chapters  in  the  Bible. 


1/4  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE  ? 

How  could  the  Westminster  divines  neglect  such  verses 
as  the  following  ?  — 

'*  Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven"  (3).  "For  the  Son  of  man  is 
come  to  save  that  which  was  lost  (11).  How  think  ye?  if  a  man  have 
an  hundred  sheep,  and  one  of  them  be  gone  astray,  doth  he  not  leave 
the  ninety  and  nine,  and  goeth  into  the  mountains,  and  seeketh  that 
which  is  gone  astray?  (12).  And  if  so  be  that  he  find  it,  verily  I  say 
unto  you,  he  rejoiceth  more  of  that  sheep,  than  of  the  ninety  and  nine 
which  went  not  astray  (13).  Even  so  it  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father 
which  is  in  heaven,  that  one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish"  (14). 

"  Then  came  Peter  to  him,  and  said.  Lord,  how  oft  shall  my  brother 
sin  against  me,  and  I  forgive  him?  till  seven  times?  (21).  Jesus  saith 
unto  him,  I  say  not  unto  thee,  Until  seven  times :  but,  Until  seventy 
times  seven"  (22). 

Place  over  against  this  neglect  of  these  wonderful  words 
of  Jesus  the  citation,  no  less  than  five  times,  of  ver.  17, 
"  Let  him  be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man  and  a  publican." 
Surely  this  verse  needed  to  be  guarded  by  ver.  14  that 
precedes  it  and  ver.  22  that  follows  it,  as  well  as  by  the 
parable  of  the  unmerciful  servant  that  closes  the  chapter. 
For  often  Presbyteries  have  neglected  the  precepts  of 
mercy  in  their  exercise  of  discipline. 

2.    The  Gospel  of  Mark. 

This  gospel  is  used  but  eighteen  times  in  the  Confession. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  greater  portion  of  Mark  is 
found  in  Matthew  and  Luke.  But  some  things  are  given 
only  by  him ;  as,  for  instance,  {a)  the  parable  of  the  seed 
growing  secretly,  iv.  26-29. 

"And  he  said.  So  is  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  if  a  man  should  cast 
seed  into  the  ground  (26)  ;  and  should  sleep,  and  rise  night  and  day, 
and  the  seed  should  spring  and  grow  up,  he  knoweth  no.t  how  (27). 
For  the  earth  bringeth  forth  fruit  of  herself;  first  the  blade,  then  tTie 
ear,  after  that  the  full  corn  in  the  ear  (28).  But  when  the  fruit  is 
brought  forth,  immediately  he  putteth  in  the  sickle,  because  the  harvest 
is  come"  (29). 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 75 

This  was  overlooked  by  the  Westminster  divines. 

(b)  The  doctrine  of  the  blasphemy  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as 
an  eternal  sin,  in  Mark  iii.  29,  with  its  parallel,  in  Luke  xii. 
10  and  Matthew  xii.  31-32,  "neither  in  this  world,  neither 
in  the  world  to  come,"  is  omitted.  This  is  one  of  the  most 
important  passages  for  the  doctrine  of  the  sin  against  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness.  It  has  an  im- 
portant bearing  on  the  question  of  forgiveness  of  sins  after 
death.     But  it  was  overlooked  in  making  the  Confession. 

3.    The  Gospel  of  Luke. 

In  the  section  chaps,  i.-iv.  Luke  is  used  nine  times.  In 
the  section  v.-ix.  50  there  is  but  one  citation.  In  the  section 
ix.  51-xviii.  14,  giving  the  Perean  ministry,  the  most  char- 
acteristic section  of  Luke,  there  are  only  thirteen  citations. 
In  xviii.  1 5-xxiv.  there  are  eighteen  citations. 

{a)  One  of  the  most  characteristic  omissions  is  the  story 
of  the  woman  that  was  a  sinner,  Ltike  vii.  36-50,  with  its 
lesson  of  love.  The  Roman  Catholics  make  much  of  this 
passage,  and  it  has  always  been  difficult  for  Protestants  to 
reconcile  it  with  justification  by  faith  only.  But  the  les- 
son contained  in  the  following  verse  must  be  mastered 
before  the  Gospel  can  be  understood  in  its  completeness. 
''Wherefore  I  say  unto  thee,  Her  sins  which  are  many  are 
forgiven  ;  for  she  loved  much  :  but  to  whom  little  is  for- 
given, the  same  loveth  little  "  (47). 

We  shall  now  call  attention  to  the  great  central  section 
of  Luke. 

{b)  The  story  of  t\v^  good  Samaritan,  in  x.  30-37,  and  of 
Martha  and  Mary,  x.  38-42,  are  both  ignored. 

{c)  The  parable  of  the  friend  at  midnight,  xi.  5-13,  is 
neglected,  with  its  wonderful  lesson  :  "  How  much  more 
shall  your  heavenly  Father  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them 
that  ask  him  "  (13). 


176  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

{d)  The  parable  of  the  rich  fool,  in  xii.  15-21,  is  omitted. 

{e)  The  parable  of  the  great  supper,  in  xiv.  1 5-24,  is 
neglected. 

(/)  The  Westminster  Confession  is  altogether  uncon- 
scious of  the  stories  of  the  lost  sheep,  the  lost  piece  of  silver, 
and  the  prodigal  son,  of  chap.  xv. 

{g)  The  story  of  Dives  and  Lazarus  alone  is  used  in 
chap.  xvi.  Vers.  29  and  31  are  used  to  prove  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  (i.  2).  But  these  are  left  out  of 
the  American  list.  Vers.  25-26  are  used  to  prove  that 
"prayer  is  not  to  be  made  for  the  dead"  (xxi.  4).  But 
these  verses  do  not  prove  that  doctrine,  and  are  improp- 
erly cited.  Vers.  23-24  are  used  to  prove  that  the  wicked 
are  cast  into  hell  at  death  (xxxii.  i).  No  other  use  is 
made  of  this  passage  for  the  doctrine  of  the  middle  state. 

{Ji)  One  of  the  most  important  passages  of  the  Gospels 
for  the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  is  xvii.  20-37,  and  yet 
there  is  not  a  citation  from  it. 

(/)  The  story  of  the  unjust  judge  and  of  the  Pharisee 
and  the  Publica7i  {chap,  xviii.)  are  passed  by. 

It  is  thus  manifest  that  the  greater  part  of  the  most 
evangelical  passages  in  Luke  and  the  most  wonderful 
words  of  Jesus  have  nothing  to  correspond  with  them  in 
our  Confession  of  Faith. 

4.    The  Gospel  of  John. 

This  gospel  is  cited  eighty  times. 

{a)  It  is  quite  remarkable  that  the  Westminster  divines 
should  neglect  the  words  of  the  Baptist  as  given  in  i.  29 
and  36,  "  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the 
sins  of  the  world." 

{b)  But  little  of  chap.  Hi.  is  used.  Vers.  3,  5,  8,  are  cited 
to  prove  that  "elect  infants  are  regenerated  by  the  Spirit, 
who  worketh    when,   and  where,   and   how   he   pleaseth " 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  I // 

(x.  3),  but  certainly  there  is  no  hint  of  elect  infants  in  the 
words  of  Jesus.  The  American  list  omits  vers.  3  and  5, 
which  the  Westminster  divines  used  to  prove  the  necessity 
of  regeneration.  But  these  verses  connect  water  with  the 
Spirit,  and  nothing  is  said  of  water  in  x.  3.  Vers.  5  and  8 
are  used  to  prove  that  "  the  efficacy  of  baptism  is  not  tied 
to  that  moment  of  time  wherein  it  is  administered"  (xxviii. 
6).  How  these  texts  prove  that,  it  is  difficult  to  see.  It  is 
well  known  that  a  large  portion  of  Christians  think  that 
they  prove  the  reverse  of  that  proposition.  Thus  not  one 
of  these  citations  is  legitimate.  No  proper  use  is  made  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  or  the  doctrine  of  regeneration 
as  here  set  forth  by  Jesus.  The  wonderful  passage  from 
vers.  13-21  is  ignored. 

"  And  no  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down 
from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man  which  is  in  heaven  (13).  And  as 
Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of 
man  be  lifted  up  (14)  :  that  whosoever  belie veth  on  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  eternal  life  (15).  For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that 
he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should 
not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life  (16).  For  God  sent  not  his  Son 
into  the  world  to  condemn  the  world ;  but  that  the  world  through  him 
might  be  saved  (17).  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned: 
but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already,  because  he  hath  not 
believed  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God  (18).  And  this 
is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved 
darkness  rather  than  light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil  (19).  For 
every  one  that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light,  neither  cometh  to  the  light, 
lest  his  deeds  should  be  reproved  (20).  But  he  that  doeth  truth  cometh 
to  the  light,  that  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest,  that  they  are  wrought 
in  God"  (21). 

It  is  true  that  ver.  16  is  used  to  prove  that  God  ''freely 
offered  unto  sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  re- 
quiring of  them  faith  in  him  that  they  might  be  saved" 
(vii.  3).  But  here  the  breadth  of  the  doctrine  is  diminished 
by  the  substitution  of  simiers  for  world,  and  then  still  fur- 


178  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

ther  by  the  qualifying  clause,  **and  promising  to  give  unto 
all  those  that  are  ordained  unto  life  his  Holy  Spirit,  to 
make  them  willing  and  able  to  beUeve."  This  verse  is 
also  cited  to  prove  that  the  "  only  begotten  Son  is  mediator 
between  God  and  man  "  (viii.  i).  These  are  the  only  uses 
that  are  made  of  this  verse  and  of  this  section.  These 
verses  set  forth  the  wonders  of  God's  love  in  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  world,  by  faith  in  his  only  begotten  Son ;  but 
the  Westminster  divines  did  not  grasp  it. 

(c)  Chap.  V.  1-29  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of  the  life  of 
God  as  welling  up  through  the  Son  for  the  purpose  of  be- 
stowing eternal  life  on  men.  The  only  verses  cited  from 
this  section  are  vers.  22,  23,  25-29.  Vers.  22  and  27  are 
used  to  prove  that  the  Father  hath  put  all  power  and  judg- 
ment into  the  hand  of  the  Son  (viii.  3)  and  (xxxiii.  i).  Ver. 
23  is  cited  to  teach  that  religious  worship  should  be  given 
to  God  the  Son  (xxi.  2).  Ver.  25  is  cited  to  prove  the 
quickening  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  effectual  calling  (x.  2), 
which  is  certainly  a  misuse  of  the  passage.  Ver.  26  is 
used  to  prove  that  God  hath  all  life  in  himself  (ii.  2).  Vers. 
28-29  are  used  to  prove  the  universal  resurrection  (xxxii. 
3).  But  the  great  doctrines  of  the  chapter,  that  ''  the  Son 
quickeneth  whom  he  will"  (21),  and  "he  that  heareth  my 
word,  and  believeth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting 
life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation  ;  but  is  passed 
from  death  unto  life  "  (24),  are  overlooked. 

id)  Chap.  vi.  is  in  some  respects  the  most  important  in 
the  Gospel,  setting  forth  Jesus  as  the  bread  of  life  from 
heaven,  as  the  living  water  to  satisfy  the  thirst  of  men, 
and  as  the  sacrificial  victim,  whose  flesh  and  blood  are  for 
the  life  and  nourishment  of  men,  and  that  the  words  of 
Jesus  are  spirit  and  life.  All  these  vastly  important  doc- 
trines are  ignored,  and  the  only  citations  from  the  chapter 
are  the  following: :  — 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  1 79 

"  All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me ;  and  him  that 
Cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out"  {2)7  used  thrice).  "And 
this  is  the  Father's  will  which  hath  sent  me,  that  of  all  which  he  hath 
given  me  I  should  lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it  up  again  at  the  last 
day"  (39). 

"  No  man  can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me 
draw  him :  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day  "  (44  used  thrice). 

"It  is  written  in  the  prophets,  And  they  shall  be  all  taught  of 
God.  Every  man  therefore  that  hath  heard,  and  hath  learned  of  the 
Father,  cometh  unto  me  "  (45  used  three  times). 

"  But  there  are  some  of  you  that  believe  not.  For  Jesus  knew  from 
the  beginning  who  they  were  that  believed  not,  and  who  should  betray 
him"  (64  used  twice). 

"And  he  said.  Therefore  said  I  unto  you,  that  no  man  can  come 
unto  me,  except  it  were  given  unto  him  of  my  Father"  (65  used  thrice). 

"From  that  time  many  of  his  disciples  went  back,  and  walked  no 
more  with  him"  (66). 

It  is  amazing  that  the  Westminster  divines  should  use 
in  a  pubHc  Confession  these  hard  passages  nine  times,  and 
the  loving  passages  not  at  all. 

(e)  There  is  no  use  of  the  story  of  t/ie  7nan  born  blind  in 
cJiap.  ix. 

(/)  There  is  no  use  of  the  story  of  tJie  resurrection  of 
Lazarus  in  cJiap.  xi. 

{g)  There  is  no  use  of  chap.  xii.  It  is  very  remarkable 
that  the  following  section  should  have  been  ignored  :  — 

"  Now  is  my  soul  troubled;  and  what  shall  I  say?  Father,  save  me 
from  this  hour  :  but  for  this  cause  came  I  unto  this  hour  (27).  Father, 
glorify  thy  name.  Then  came  there  a  voice  from  heaven,  saying,  I  have 
both  glorified  it,  and  will  glorify  it  again  (28).  The  people  therefore, 
that  stood  by,  and  heard  it,  said  that  it  thundered :  others  said,  an 
angel  spake  to  him  (29).  Jesus  answered  and  said.  This  voice  came 
not  because  of  me,  but  for  your  sakes  (30).  Now  is  the  judgment  of 
this  world :  Now  shall  the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out  (31).  And 
I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me  (32). 
This  he  said,  signifying  what  death  he  should  die  (33).  The  people 
answered  him.  We  have  heard  out  of  the  law  that  Christ  abideth  for- 
ever :  and  how  sayest  thou,  The  Son  of  man  must  be  lifted  up  ?  who 


l80  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

is  this  Son  of  man?  (34).  Then  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Yet  a  little 
while  is  the  light  with  you.  Walk  while  ye  have  the  light,  lest  dark- 
ness come  upon  you :  for  he  that  walketh  in  darkness  knoweth  not 
whither  he  goeth  (35).  While  ye  have  light,  believe  in  the  light,  that 
ye  may  be  the  children  of  light  "  (36). 

(//)  The  neglect,  the  misuse,  and  the  abuse  of  the  last 
discourse  of  Jesus,  chaps,  xiii.-xvii.,  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  are  so  great  that  we  have  not  the  time  or  patience 
to  discuss  them. 

The  most  characteristic  features  of  the  Gospel  of  John 
are  overlooked  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith. 

VI  I.    The  Confession  and  the  Psalter. 

A  study  of  the  proof-texts  from  the  Old  Testament  re- 
veals a  worse  state  of  affairs.  I  shall  briefly  refer  to  the 
citations  from  the  Psalter.  There  are  102  citations  from 
the  Pentateuch,  64  from  the  other  historical  books,  98  from 
the  Psalter,  55  from  the  other  poetical  books,  and  112  from 
the  Prophets,  making  431  from  the  entire  Old  Testament 
against  66'/  from  the  Pauline  epistles,  and  495  from  the 
rest  of  the  New  Testament.  Judges,  Jonah,  Obadaiah, 
Habakkuk,  and  Zephaniah  are  not  used  at  all ;  Ruth, 
Nahum,  and  Haggai  but  once  each ;  Numbers,  Esther, 
Lamentations,  Joel,  and  Zechariah  but  twice  each ;  and 
many  of  the  most  important  passages  for  the  Being  and 
Attributes  of  God,  the  doctrine  of  Creation,  the  doctrine 
of  Redemption,  and  the  Middle  State,  are  overlooked  and 
neglected. 

I.  The  Psalter  is  cited  many  times,  but  without  any 
comprehensive  study  of  its  theology. 

{a)  It  seems  almost  incredible  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Being  and  Attributes  of  God  should  be  neglected  in 
Pss.  xxxvi.  5-9,  Ixxxv.,  Ixxxix.  1-18,  ciii.  (used  only  in 
ver.  13),  cxxxix. 


THE    CONFESSION    TESTED    BY    SCRIPTURE.  IS  I 

{b)  We  are  not  surprised  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Crea- 
tion is  so  inadequate  in  the  Confession,  when  we  see  that 
there  has  been  no  use  made  of  Pss.  viii.  and  civ.  (used  only 
in  ver.  24). 

{c)  The  following  choice  Psalms,  familiar  in  the  devo- 
tions of  Christendom,  are  not  used  at  all :  Pss.  i.,  iii.,  xi., 
XX.,  xxi.,  xxiii.,  xxv.,  xxvii.,  xlii.,  xliii.,  xlvi.,  xlviii.,  Ixiii., 
Ixvii.,  Ixviii.,  Ixix.,  Ixxx.,  Ixxxiv.,  Ixxxvii.,  xci.,  xcv.-xcix., 
cxviii.,  cxxxvi.,  cxlviii. 

{d)  The  doctrine  of  the  Future  Life  is  overlooked  in  Pss. 
xvi.,  xvii.,  xlix. 

{e)  The  only  portions  of  the  fifteen  Pilgrim  Psalms  that 
are  used  are  :  cxxii.  9,  cxxx.  3-4,  cxxxii.  2-5. 

The  comparison  makes  it  clear  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Psalter  is  not  in  the  Confession. 

Our  study  of  the  proof-texts  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession makes  it  evident  that  the  Confession  and  the  Scrip- 
tures are  not  in  agreement.  The  principal  fault  of  the 
Confession  is  its  omissions.  The  faults  that  have  been 
made  in  the  misuse  and  abuse  of  the  proof-texts  may  be 
overcome  by  removing  those  texts  and  substituting  others 
in  their  place.  If  such  cannot  be  found  to  prove  the  state- 
ments of  the  Confession,  then  let  the  statements  that  can- 
not be  sustained  by  Scripture  be  blotted  out.  Revision 
is  practicable  at  all  these  points.  But  it  will  be  clear  to 
any  one  who  has  followed  this  study  that  there  are  so 
many  omissions  of  important  doctrines  of  Holy  Scripture, 
that  there  is  such  a  disproportionate  use  of  the  darker  and 
gloomier  side  of  the  Bible,  and  such  a  neglect  of  the 
brighter  and  more  gracious  side,  and  that  there  is  such  a 
difference  between  the  Confession  and  the  preaching  of 
the  pulpit  and  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  our  homes,  that 
something  more  than  revision  will  be  required  to  meet  the 


1 82  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

necessities  of  the  case,  and  that  we  must  set  our  faces 
towards  a  new  creed  as  the  only  adequate  solution  of  the 
difficulties  of  the  situation. 

My  beloved  teacher  in  Systematic  Theology,  the  late 
Henry  B.  Smith,  gave  the  key-note  to  the  Revision  move- 
ment when  he  said :  "  What  Reformed  Theology  has  got 
to  do  is  to  Christologize  predestination  and  decrees ;  re- 
generation and  sanctification  ;  the  doctrine  of  the  church  ; 
and  the  whole  of  eschatology."  *  The  reader  of  this  paper 
sees  that  Henry  B.  Smith  is  right.  It  is  just  in  the  field 
of  Christology  that  the  Westminster  Confession  is  sadly 
defective.  The  Presbyterian  Church  —  yes,  the  Christian 
world  —  demands  a  creed  that  shall  give  expression  to  the 
words  of  Jesus,  and  the  teachings  of  Peter,  James,  and  John. 
The  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  will  not  be  ignored ;  but 
Presbyterianism  has  advanced  from  the  earlier  Paulinism 
to  the  later,  and  is  no  longer  content  to  sacrifice  the  richer 
doctrine  of  his  later  epistles  for  the  less  mature  doctrine 
of  his  earlier  writings. 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  1884,  p.  562. 


IX. 

A   NEW   CREED. 

BY  THE   REV.    CHARLES   L.   THOMPSON,    D.D. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  is  asserting  again  the  right 
which  Presbyterians  have  always  been  swift  to  maintain ; 
viz.  the  right  to  sit  in  judgment  on  any  human  declaration 
and  bring  it  to  the  bar  of  ''the  law  and  the  testimony."  It 
will  be  a  sad  day  when  that  right  is  seriously  resisted.  In 
defence  of  it,  Presbyterians  have  been  willing  to  die.  There 
is  only  one  sacred  book.  All  councils  and  assemblies  have 
erred.  It  is  of  the  very  genius  of  our  church  to  hold  them 
to  account.  The  right  of  the  examination  of  our  standards 
for  purposes  of  revision  or  restatement  is  not  a  new  claim. 
It  belongs  to  us  by  right  of  all  our  history. 

Let  it  be  granted  there  should  be  no  examination  of 
standards  without  good  reason.  It  is  believed  by  very 
many  that  such  a  reason  does  exist.  That  reason  may  be 
broadly  expressed  thus  :  The  Confession  of  Faith  no  longer 
adequately  expresses  the  faith  of  our  church.  There  is  no 
other  explanation  of  the  broad  debate  in  the  midst  of  which 
we  find  ourselves.  It  is  the  same  conviction  that  for  the 
past  ten  years,  and  more,  has  been  agitating  the  mind  and 
directing  the  action  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church  of 
Scotland,  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  the  Established 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Eng- 
land.   This  conviction  is  partly  due  to  a  change  of  position. 

183 


1^4  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

Every  creed  gets  some  color  from  its  atmosphere.  Every 
intellectual  atmosphere  has  refracting  power.  We  look 
back  to  the  discussions  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and 
while  we  see  the  general  outlines  of  truth  as  they  saw 
them,  the  refraction  of  the  centuries  has  thrown  those 
truths  somewhat  out  of  line  and  position.  The  battle 
front  of  that  day  is  not  the  battle  front  of  this  day.  They 
were  called  upon  to  enthrone  and  defend  the  sovereignty 
of  God  against  the  sovereignty  of  the  Pope  and  the  divine 
right  of  kings.  The  points  for  stress  and  emphasis  now 
are,  first,  the  existence  of  God  as  against  an  infidelity  that 
denies  Him,  and  secondly,  the  goodness  and  love  of  God  as 
against  a  science  that  admits  into  its  estimate  of  nature 
only  an  implacable  law,  whether  that  law  be  personal  in 
God  or  impersonal  in  nature.  We  need  not  try  to  say  the 
sovereignty  of  God.  We  cannot  say  it  louder  than  nature 
says  it.  We  need  to  say  that  sovereignty  is  wise,  good, 
and  loving. 

Again,  it  is  not  only  a  change  of  emphasis  that  is 
needed.  The  debate  is  not  due  entirely  to  a  change  of 
position.  Refraction  breaking  the  line  of  vision  does  not 
account  for  the  whole  of  it.  There  are  some  theological 
changes.  Many  are  not  satisfied  with  some  expressions  of 
the  Confession  of  Faith ;  not  because  they  are  obscure  or 
doubtful ;  not  because  their  grammar  or  rhetoric  could  be 
improved ;  not  because  changes  of  time  have  wrought 
changes  in  the  meaning  or  force  of  language.  There  is  a 
good  deal  of  disbelief  of  the  plain  and  historic  meaning  of 
some  of  the  passages.  For  example,  there  is  no  quarrel 
about  divine  sovereignty,  general  or  in  election.  But  when 
that  sovereignty  is  pushed  into  the  philosophic  inferences 
of  the  third  chapter  in  which  the  Confession  goes  on  to 
give  the  reasons  in  God's  mind  for  His  sovereignty  in  elec- 
tion, then  there  is  a  pretty  wide  dissent.     So  also  *'  elect 


A    NEW    CREED.  1 85 

infants."  The  best  that  can  be  said  about  that  phrase  is 
that  it  needs  a  commentary  wherever  it  goes.  The  worst 
that  can  be  said  about  it  is  that,  historically  considered,  it 
states  clearly  enough  the  minds  of  many,  perhaps  a  major- 
ity, of  the  Westminster  Assembly ;  that  they  used  the  phrase 
intelligently,  that  they  were  not  playing  Delphic  oracle  with 
posterity,  — they  said  "elect  infants  "  because  they  believed 
some  infants  dying  in  infancy  were  not  elect  and  were  not 
saved. 

Again,  the  church  no  longer  believes  with  the  Westmin- 
ster divines  in  regard  to  the  salvability  of  the  heathen. 
We  have  very  little  divine  light  given  us  regarding  the 
future  of  the  heathen.  For  that  reason  we  are  no  longer 
willing  to  speak  dogmatically  on  the  subject. 

There  are  very  many  other  points  in  which  some  minis- 
ters and  laymen  would  like  to  see  some  modifications  of 
our  standards.  It  is  true,  the  strongest  objection  is  to  a 
few  points.  But  in  a  small  committee,  examining  a  few 
weeks  ago  the  Confession  of  Faith  with  reference  to  revis- 
ion, there  were  over  thirty  points,  affecting  nearly  every 
chapter,  which  were  pointed  out  for  revision.  This  number 
is  likely  to  increase. 

Another  desire  for  revision  or  new  statement  arises  from 
what  may  be  called  the  negative  defects  of  the  Confession. 
It  is  said  the  love  of  God,  the  free  offer  of  salvation,  and 
the  duty  of  the  church  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  crea- 
ture are  present  in  the  Confession  rather  by  inference  than 
by  direct  and  emphatic  expression.  These  ideas,  it  is 
claimed,  should  be  inserted  somewhere.  Those  who  have 
looked  for  places  where  these  various  expressions  could  be 
logically  inserted  have  found  some  difficulty.  The  Confes- 
sion  is  tremendously  compact.  It  is  not  easy  at  any  point 
to  break  the  connection  and  insert  other  or  kindred  ideas 
without  the  break  becoming  apparent  and  interrupting  the 
continuity  and  force  of  the  statements. 


l86  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

It  is  manifest  revision  does  present  some  difficulties. 
They  are  not,  however,  those  which  anti-revisionists  usually 
find.  Thus  it  is  said,  our  Confession  was  formed  at  a  great 
heat,  by  men  of  great  ability,  and  is  so  welded  that  it  can- 
not be  improved.  We  are  told  the  temper  of  the  times  is 
not  right  for  readjusting  doctrinal  statements,  and  what- 
ever the  Westminster  divines  may  have  failed  in,  there  is 
no  hope  that  divines  of  to-day  can  succeed  in.  The  West- 
minster divines  were  undoubtedly  justly  eminent  for  schol- 
arship and  devotion  ;  but  the  world  is  not  going  backward 
in  the  matter  of  Biblical  learning.  On  the  score  of  schol- 
arship, we  are  quite  as  competent  to  put  our  faith  into 
clear  and  intelligent  expression  as  have  been  the  divines  of 
any  past  age.  And  then,  the  fires  of  fierce  debate  in  which 
our  Confession  was  welded,  though  excellent  for  giving 
logical  form  to  a  symbol,  may  not  be  the  most  conducive 
to  that  calm,  broad  view  which  best  discloses  the  true  pro- 
portions of  faith. 

The  difficulties  of  revision  are  not  then  those  that  belong 
to  our  theological  position.  We  know  what  we  believe, 
and  are  quite  competent  to  say  it. 

The  real  difficulties  in  the  case  are  just  tvv^o.  First,  the 
difficulty  of  revising  our  standards  till  they  shall  exactly 
express  the  present  faith  of  the  church,  and  at  the  same 
time  keeping  those  standards  in  their  integrity.  By  this 
it  is  not  affirmed  that  the  present  demand  for  revision 
necessarily  implies  any  radical  changes  of  doctrine.  But 
even  those  changes  already  proposed,  and  on  which  there 
is  most  general  agreement,  would  so  change  the  Confession 
that  it  would  cease  to  be  the  precise  historic  symbol  of  our 
faith,  revered  on  account  of  the  share  it  had  in  shaping  the 
theological  thinking  of  the  past  two  centuries.  Thus  the 
third  chapter  if  recast,  as  demanded  by  some  of  our  Pres- 
byteries, would  no  longer  be  the  chapter  framed  by  the 


A    NEW    CREED.  1 8/ 

Westminster  divines,  and  that  underlies  the  theology  of 
Edwards  and  others.  As  revised,  it  doubtless  would  better 
express  the  faith  of  the  church  now,  but  we  would  by  so 
much  cut  loose  historically  from  the  past.  It  would  be 
like  phonetic  spelling  in  its  effect  on  our  literature.  We 
would  be  sundered  from  the  roots  of  theological  thinking. 
Why  should  we  lose  those  roots  any  more  than  those  that 
are  in  the  other  historic  creeds  all  the  way  back  to  the 
apostles  .-* 

The  second  difficulty  connected  with  revision  is  in  the 
prolonged  theological  ferment  in  which  it  would  be  likely 
to  keep  us.  A  few  changes  in  a  few  chapters  could  easily 
and  promptly  be  made.  But  as  I  have  intimated,  the  de- 
mand for  revision  is  one  that  steadily  increases  in  area. 
There  is  scarce  a  chapter  that  has  escaped  criticism  and 
suggestion  for  revision.  If  revision  were  for  the  present 
confined  to  the  third  and  tenth  chapters,  since  that  very 
effort  to  revise  those  chapters  assumes  that  we  are  trying 
to  bring  our  Confession  into  exact  line  with  our  present 
thinking,  it  would  let  loose  upon  the  church  an  increasing 
debate  and  keep  us  in  indefinite  agitation.  For  notice  the 
assumption  of  revision  is  that  the  Confession  must  square 
to  our  thought.  That  canon  of  criticism  admitted  will 
tend  to  make  us  intolerant  of  many  expressions  which  we 
have  heretofore  quietly  carried  on  account  of  their  historic 
truth,  but  which  under  the  idea  underlying  revision  we 
would  be  willing  to  carry  no  longer.  The  result  would  be 
a  perpetual  tinkering  process.  How  many  years  would  it 
take  under  that  process  to  destroy  the  historic  identity  of 
the  standards  ? 

For  the  reasons  now  given  it  seems  wise  to  a  good  many 
who  are  anxious  that  something  should  be  done,  that  that 
something  should  take  the  form  of  a  new  statement,  the 
relation  of  which  to  our  standards  should  not  be  supplant- 


1 88  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE/ 

ing,  but  supplemental  and  explanatory.  Those  who  are 
opposed  to  revision  are,  for  the  most  part,  opposed  also  to 
a  new  creed.  Dr.  Warfield,  in  a  recent  article,  declares  the 
demand  for  a  new  statement  to  be  revolutionary.  Revision 
in  his  mind  means  a  doctrinal  revolution.  A  new  creed 
means  an  ecclesiastical  revolution.  He  finds  in  it,  by  a 
logic  one  cannot  follow,  an  attack  upon  our  denominational 
existence.  It  can  be  a  revolutionary  attack  on  our  denomi- 
national integrity  only  on  two  assumptions,  which  are 
utterly  groundless,  and  have  again  and  again  been  repudi- 
ated by  those  who  favor  a  consensus  creed.  The  first  is, 
that  the  new  creed  shall  wholly  take  the  place  of  standards ; 
that  neither  the  Confession  of  Faith  nor  the  Larger  or 
Shorter  Catechism  shall  have  any  authoritative  standing  in 
our  church  ;  that  they  shall  all  be  relegated  to  the  garret 
of  theological  lumber.  The  Presbytery  of  New  York  has 
guarded  itself  against  the  imputation  of  any  such  design  as 
strenuously  as  language  can  do  it.  But  Dr.  Warfield  ob- 
jects that  such  must  logically  be  the  result.  No  matter 
what  the  avowed  purpose  of  the  new  creed,  its  effect  will 
be  to  take  the  place  of  the  standards.  This  argument  is  a 
boomerang.  It  argues  strongly  against  the  vitality  and 
power  of  our  standards.  We  do  not  think  so  poorly  of 
them  as  to  believe  that,  if  a  compendium  of  their  doctrine 
is  put  before  the  church  for  practical  use,  they  will  at  once 
sink  out  of  sight.  They  will  not  have  less  vitality  because 
we  have  accompanied  them  with  a  brief  statement  of  the 
sense  in  which  we  hold  them,  —  but  more  :  I  believe  they 
will  spring  into  new  life  and  power. 

The  second  assumption  underlying  the  absurd  idea  that 
a  new  creed  is  revolutionary  and  threatens  our  denomina- 
tional existence,  is  the  utterly  baseless  one,  that  no  distinc- 
tive Calvinistic  doctrine  can  or  will  be  put  into  the  brief 
creed.      Those  who   think  our  denominational    existence 


A    NEW    CREED.  1 89 

depends  on  our  doctrines  being  extended  to  all  the  philo- 
sophical ramifications  of  extreme  Calvinism  may  find  some 
ground  for  their  fears  in  the  necessary  limitations  of  a 
briefer  creed.  It  is  to  be  hoped  their  number  is  small,  that 
there  are  not  many  who  believe  that  our  denominational 
integrity  depends  on  the  logical  or  illogical  inferences  of 
the  various  sections  of  the  third  chapter.  It  is  to  be  hoped 
the  doctrine  of  reprobation,  for  example,  is  not  an  integral 
and  essential  part  of  our  system,  and  that  we  can  be  sound 
Calvinists  without  pronouncing  dogmatically,  not  only  on 
the  divine  decrees,  but  also  on  the  motives  which  moved 
God  to  do  as  He  has  done. 

There  is,  if  I  mistake  not,  some  danger  to  the  harmony 
of  our  church  in  pressing  unduly  the  view  Dr.  Warfield 
takes  of  the  revolutionary  character  of  a  new  creed.  If 
representative  theologians  among  us  take  the  position  that 
we  cannot  keep  our  denominational  life  without  carrying 
with  us  all  the  deductions  of  our  Confession  ;  if,  in  a  word, 
to  be  a  Calvinistic  body  we  must  be  a  hyper-Calvinistic 
body, — there  will  be  a  strong  disposition  to  say,  This  is  a 
yoke  we  are  not  able  to  bear.  Our  existence  as  a  denomi- 
nation never  has  depended  on  the  Supra-Lapsarian  impli- 
cations of  the  Confession,  and  does  not  now  so  depend. 
We  would  be  sound  Calvinists,  historic  and  actual,  if  we 
asserted  God's  sovereignty  in  election  and  struck  out  every 
other  section  of  the  third  chapter  of  the  Confession. 

Others  are  opposed  to  the  new  creed,  or  are  in  doubt  as 
to  its  utility,  on  grounds  less  radical.  They  fear  that  in 
some  way  it  will  militate  against  the  Confession,  and  will 
ultimately  displace  it.  The  friends  of  a  new  creed  have 
been  careful  to  disavow  any  purpose  to  have  it  interfere 
with  the  integrity  or  vitality  of  our  standards. 

They  have  no  wish  to  supplant  the  standards  —  only  to 
supplement  and  explain.      Indeed,  some  who  favor  a  new 


IQO  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

statement  of  doctrine  are  moved  rather  by  their  love  ot 
the  Confession,  and  their  unwilhngness  to  see  it  mutilated 
by  revision. 

It  may  still  be  said,  however,  —  no  matter  what  the  pur- 
poses or  desires  of  the  advocates  of  a  new  creed  may  be,  — 
this  purpose  or  desire  cannot  avert  the  inevitable  tendency, 
and  that  the  adoption  of  a  new  creed  will  necessarily  tend 
to  retire  the  old  one.  In  reply,  it  is  to  be  said  :  If  the 
new  statement  were  a  new  system  of  doctrine,  this  would 
follow.  For  the  theological  change  which  created  the 
new  system  would  necessarily  push  aside  the  old  one.  But 
such  a  result  is  not  to  be  apprehended,  if,  as  is  proposed, 
the  new  creed  simply  reaffirms  in  briefer  forms  the  doctrines 
of  our  standards.  Such  reaffirmation,  after  thorough 
and  fearless  discussion  of  the  cardinal  doctrines  of  our 
system,  would  give  them  additional  vitality  and  power. 
People  now  may  say  we  are  living  on  an  inherited  system 
that  has  been  put  into  no  recent  crucible  of  criticism. 
They  would  not  be  able  to  say  it,  if,  after  the  keenest  fire 
of  the  theological  criticism  of  to-day,  our  standards,  as  to 
all  essential  characteristics,  were  again  affirmed.  Nor 
would  this  happy  result  be  in  the  slightest  jeopardized,  if 
the  new  creed  should  lay  less  emphasis  on  the  secret 
counsels  of  the  Divine  Will,  and  more  emphasis  on  the 
declared  love  of  God  for  all  mankind.  The  compendium 
of  a  constitution  never  retires  it.  If  justly  drawn,  it  in- 
creases its  power.  The  fact  is,  that  underneath  all  these 
expressed  fears  that  a  new  statement  would  operate  disas- 
trously on  our  present  standards,  is  the  implication  that 
friends  of  the  new  creed  are  trying  to  bring  the  Trojan 
horse  within  our  walls ;  that,  however  their  language  may 
be  guarded,  they  favor  a  creed  without  distinctive  doctrinal 
character.  This  has  been  so  often  disavowed,  that  the 
disavowal  need  not  be  repeated.     The  character  of  some 


A    NEW    CREED.  I9I 

of  these  men,  however,  as  sound  theologians  and  upright 
Christians,  should  make  the  disavowal  unnecessary. 

A  few  words  on  the  advantages  of  such  a  creed  may 
properly  close  this  paper. 

1st,  It  is  an  irenic  measure.  Something  is  going  to  be 
done.  It  may  be  taken  as  settled  that  the  church  will 
require  some  sort  of  change  ;  that  change  will  be  either 
by  revision,  slight  or  more  thorough,  by  a  supplementary 
declaration,  or  by  a  new  creed.  I  have  alluded  to  the  diffi- 
culties that  beset  revision.  If  slight  revision  of  a  few 
phrases  be  agreed  upon,  there  will  still  be  a  demand  for  a 
compact  statement  of  our  doctrine  that  can  be  used  in  our 
churches,  and  readily  comprehended  by  those  who  may 
desire  to  know  the  principal  points  of  our  doctrine.  Those 
who  are  opposed  to  revision  can  accept  a  new  creed  because 
the  Confession  will  be  left  intact.  Those  who  are  in  favor 
of  revision  may  find  in  the  new  creed  the  relief  they  seek. 
If  they  feel  that  the  Confession  is  deficient  in  its  declara- 
tion of  the  love  of  God,  the  needed  emphasis  can  be  given 
in  the  new  creed,  an  emphasis  to  which  the  most  strenuous 
opponent  of  revision  would  find  it  hard  to  object. 

2d,  Such  a  creed  will  be  in  line  with  the  theological 
tendencies  of  the  day,  and  will  put  us  distinctly  in  har- 
mony with  other  Reformed  churches.  We  will  be  in  touch 
with  the  apostolic  age,  whose  sharp,  short  creed  carried 
the  Gospel  to  Europe,  and  in  three  centuries  established 
it  on  the  throne  of  the  Caesars.  We  will  be  in  line  with 
evangelical  Christianity  the  world  around,  which  more  and 
more  is  finding  its  way  back  to  the  simplicity  of  apostolic 
ideas  for  the  conversion  of  the  world.  We  will  keep  our 
theological  armory  and  treasures  ;  but  when  we  go  into 
the  field,  we  will  go  in  light,  marching  order,  with  a  creed 
that  can  be  easily  handled,  and  can  flash  everywhither  for 
the  defence  and  victory  of  the  truth.     We  will  keep  our 


192  HOW    SHALL    WE    REVISE? 

"impedimenta  "  in  our  theological  camps.     We  do  not  want 
them  around  our  feet  when  we  march. 

A  creed  thus  framed,  if  possible  by  co-operation  with  all 
branches  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  a  creed  not  of  new 
doctrines,  but  of  ''  the  old  doctrines,  made  in  the  light  and 
in  the  spirit  of  our  present  Christian  activities,  of  our  high 
privileges,  and  our  large  obligations,"  —  a  creed  somewhat 
after  the  pattern  of  the  excellent  creed  of  our  English 
brethren,  —  would  infuse  new  vitality  into  our  theology, 
would  promote  closer  fellowship  among  our  churches,  and 
by  the  blessing  of  God  would  help  us  on  to  greater  victo- 
ries than  we  have  ever  known. 


APPENDIX. 


Table  of  Proof-texts  of  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession OF  Faith. 

This  table  of  proof-texts  has  been  prepared  from  the 
original  edition  of  the  Westminster  Confession  with  proof- 
texts  published  by  order  of  Parliament,  April  29,  1647,  a 
copy  of  which  is  in  the  McAlpin  collection  of  the  library  of 
the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  This  edition 
has  been  compared  with  the  second  edition  published, 
London,  1658,  with  a  recommendation  of  the  London  min- 
isters. The  few  printer's  mistakes  in  the  one  have  been 
corrected  from  the  other.  The  proof-texts  in  the  Ameri- 
can edition  are  based  upon  the  original  edition,  but  with 
many  omissions  and  fewer  additions.  These  changes  have 
not  been  noted  in  these  tables,  because  our  aim  is  to  show 
the  use  made  of  the  Scripture  by  the  authors  of  the  Confes- 
sion. The  chapters  and  sections  of  the  Confession  where 
the  citations  are  made  are  in  parentheses.  The  other 
numbers  are  those  of  the  chapters  and  verses  of  the  Bible. 
Where  no  verses  are  given,  the  entire  chapter  was  cited. 

With  this  table  in  hand,  the  reader  may  open  the  Bible 
and  see  for  himself  what  passages  have  been  used  by  the 
Westminster  divines  and  what  passages  have  been  neg- 
lected. Unless  we  greatly  mistake,  he  will  find  that  his 
favorite  passages  have  not  been  cited  in  the  Confession. 
The  texts  that  are  familiar  to  him  in  sermons  and  prayer- 
meetings  and  in  the  devotions  of  the  family,  are  in  the 
Bible,  but  are  not  in  the  Confession.  He  may  also  turn  to 
the  chapters  and  sections  of  the  Confession  given  in  the 
tables,  and  in  a  moment  learn  exactly  what  use  was  made 
of  any  passage  of  Scripture  by  the  Westminster  divines. 


194  APPENDIX. 


THE   OLD    TESTAMENT. 
GENESIS, 

(48  Citations.) 
Chapter 

I.  (iv.  i);  2  (iv.  i);  26  (iv.  2,  ix.  2);  26,  27  (xix.  i); 
26,  28  (iv.  2);  27  (iv.  2);  27,  28  (vi.  3). 
II.  2,  3  (xxi.  7);  7  (iv.  2);  16,  17  (vi.  3,  ix.  2);  17  (iv. 
2,  vi.  2,  vii.  2,  xix.  i);  18  (xxiv.  2);  24  (xxiv.  i). 

III.  6  (iv.  2,  ix.  2);  6-8  (vi.  2);  8-1 1,  23  (iv.  2);   13 

(vi.  i);   15  (vii.  3,  viii.  6,  xxv.  2);   19  (xxxii.  i). 

IV.  5  (xvi.  7);  4  (xvi.  6).     Chap.  V.  3  (vi.  3). 

VI.   5  (vi.  2,  vi.  4).     Chap.  VIII.  21  (vi.  4);  22  (v.  2). 
XVII.   I  (ii.  i);  7  (xxv.  2);  7,  9  (xxviii.  4);  7,  10  (xxvii. 

i);   10  (xxvii.  2). 
XVIII.  27  (xxi.  3). 

XXIV.  2,  3,  5,  6,  8,  9  (xxii.  3);   57,  58  (xxiv.  3). 
XXVIII.  20-22  (xxii.  6). 
XXXIV.  14  (xxiv.  3,  xxvii.  i). 

XLV.  7  (v.  i).     Chap.  XLIX.   10  (xix.  4). 
L.  20  (v.  4). 

EXODUS. 

(24  Citations.) 

III.  14  (ii.  i).     Chap.  IV.  24-26  (xxviii.  5). 

VII.  3  (v.  6).     Chap.  VIII.   15,  32  (v.  6). 

XII.  48  (xxvii.  i). 

XVI.  23,  25,  26,  29,  30  (xxi.  8). 

XX.  4-6  (xxi.  I)  ;    7  (xxii.  i,  2,  3)  ;   8  (xxi.  8)  ;    8,  10 

(xxi.  7)  ;  8,  10,  II  (xxi.  7)  ;   ^5  (xxvi.  3). 

XXI.  (xix.  4);   13  (v.  2). 

XXII.  1-29  (xix.  4)  ;  7-1 1  Cxxii.  3). 

XXVIII.  38  (xvi.  6).     Chap.  XXXI.   15-17  (xxi.  8). 

XXXIV.  I  (xix.  2) ;  6,  7  (ii.  i)  ;  7  (ii.  i)  ;   16  (xxiv.  3). 


APPENDIX.  195 

LEVITICUS, 

(6  Citations.) 
Chapter 

XVIII.  (xxiv.  4)  ;  24-28  (xxiv.  4). 

XIX.   12  (xxii.  i).     Chap.  XX.    19-21  (xxiv.  4). 
XXIV.  16  (xxiii.  3).     Chap.  XXVI.  i,  10,  14  (xix  6.). 

NUMBERS. 
V.   19,  21  (xxii.  3).     Chap.  XXX.  5,  8,  12,  13  (xxii.  7). 

DEUTERONOMY. 

[2.1  Citations.) 

II.  30  (v.  6).     Chap.  IV.   15-20  (xxi.  i)  ;   15,  16  (ii.  i). 
V.  32  (xix.  2). 
VI.  4  (ii.  i)  ;  6,  7  (xxi.  6)  ;   13  (xxi.  5,  xxii.  2). 
VII.  3,  4  (xxiv.  3).     Chap.  X.  4  (xix.  2)  ;  20  (xxii.   i). 
XII.  32  (xxi.  i). 

XIII.  5,  6,  12  (xxiii.  3)  ;  6-12  (xx.  4). 
XIX.  5  (v.  2).     Chap.  XXIII.  21-23  (xxii.  6). 
XXIV.  1-4  (xxiv.  6). 

XXIX.  4  (v.  6)  ;  19  (xviii.  i)  ;  29  (iii.  8). 
XXX.  6  (x.  I)  ;   19  (ix.  i). 

JOSHUA. 
VII.   19  (xv.  6).     Chap.  IX.   18,  19  (xxii.  4). 
XXIV.   14  (xxi.  i). 

RUTH. 
IV.   12  (xxi.  4). 

/.    SAMUEL, 

(15  Citations  from  the  Books  of  Samuel.) 

I.   II  (xxii.  6).     Chap.  II.  25  (vii.  i). 
XV.  21-23  (xvi.  i).     Chap.  XXIII.  11,  12  (iii.  2). 
XXV.  22,  32-34  (xxii.  4). 

//.   SAMUEL. 

VI.  18,  20  (xxi.  6).     Chap.  VII.  29  (xxi.  4). 
XI.  27  (xvii.  3). 

XII.  14  (xvii.  3)  ;  21-23  (xxi.  4). 
XVI.  10  (v.  4).     Chap.  XXI.   I  (xxii.  4). 
XXIII.  3  (xxiii.  2).     Chap.  XXIV.  i  (v.  4,  5). 


196  APPENDIX. 

/.  KINGS. 

(15  Citations  from  the  Books  of  Kings.) 
Chapter 

II.  35  (xxiii.  4).     Chap.  VIII.  27  (ii.  i)  ;  31  (xxii.  2). 
XI.  4  (xxiv.  3).     Chap.  XXI.  27,  29  (xvi.  7). 
XXII.  22,  23  (v.  4)  ;  28,  34  (v.  2). 

//.  KINGS. 

VI.  6  (v.  3).     Chap.  VIII.   12,  13  (v.  6). 

X.  30,  31  (xvi.  7).     Chap.  XVIII.  4  (xxiii.  3). 

XIX.  28  (v.  4). 

XXIII.  1-26  (xxiii.  3)  ;  5,  6,  9,  20,  21  (xx.  4)  ;  25  (xv.  2). 


/.   CHRONICLES, 

(There  are  28  Citations  from  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah.) 

X.  4,  13,  14  (v.  4).     Chap.  XIII.   1-9  (xxiii.  3). 
XXI.   I  (v.  4). 

//.   CHRONICLES. 

VI.  22,  23  (xxii.  i). 

XV.   12,  13  (xxiii.  3)  ;   12,  13,  16  (xx.  4). 
XIX.  8-1 1  (xxiii.  3,  xxxi.  2). 
XXVI.   18  (xxiii.  3). 

XXIX.  (xxiii.  3,  xxxi.  2).    Chap.  XXX.  (xxiii.  3,  xxxi.  2). 
XXXII.  25,  26,  31  (V.  5). 
XXXIV.  :iz  (xx.  4^  xxiii.  3). 

VII.  23-28  (xx.  4,  xxiii.  3). 
IX.   13,  14  (xix.  6).     Chap.  X.  5  (xxii.  2). 

NEHEMIAH. 

V.   12  (xxii.  3).     Chap.  IX.  32,  ^t,  (ii.  i). 
X.  29  (xxi.  5). 
XIII.    15,  17,  21,  22,  25,  30  (xx.  4)  ;   15-22  (xxi.  8)  ;  22 
(x\d.  4)  ;  25  (xxii.  2)  ;  25-27  (xxiv.  3). 


APPENDIX.  197 

ESTHER. 


Chapter 

IV.  i6  (xxi.  5).     Chap.  IX.  22  (xxi.  5). 


JOB. 

(25  Citations.) 

I.  5  (xxi.  6).     Chap.  VIII.   13,  14  (xviii.  i). 
IX.  2,  3  (xvi.  4)  ;  20  (xvi.  6)  ;  32,  33  (vii.  1). 
XI.  7,  8,  9  (ii.  i).     Chap.  XIII.   15  (xviii.  4). 
XIV.  4  (vi.  3).     Chap.  XV.   14  (vi.  3). 
XIX.  26,  27  (xxxii.  2).     Chap.  XXI.   14,  15,  (xvi.  7). 
XXII.  2,  3  (ii.  2,  vii.  I,  xvi.  5). 
XXVI.   13  (iv.  2)  ;   14  (ii.  i). 
XXVIII.  28  (xix.  I).     Chap.  XXXIII.  4  (iv.  2). 
XXXIV.  10  (v.  3).     Chap.  XXXV.  7,  8  (vii.  i,  xvi.  5). 
XXXVIII.  (v.  I).     Chap.  XXXIX.   (v.  i). 
XL.  (v.  i).     Chap.  XLI.  (v.  i). 

PSALMS. 

(98  Citations.) 
Psalms 

II.  6  (viii.  i)  ;  8  (xxv.  2)  ;   10-12  (xxiii.  2). 

IV.  6,  7  (xviii.  3).     Ps.  V.  5,  6  (ii.  i). 

XIV.  4  (xvi.  7).     Ps.  XV.  4  (xxii.  4). 

XVI.  2  (xvi.  5).     Ps.  XVIII.  3  (xxi.  i). 

XIX.  1-3  (i.  i)  ;   II  (xix.  6) ;   13  (xv.  5). 

XXII.  I  (xviii.  4) ;  30  (viii.  i).     Ps.  XXIV.  4  (xxii.  4). 

XXXI.  22  (xviii.  4)  ;  23  (xxi.  i). 

XXXII.  I  (vii.  6)  ;  3,  4  (xvii.  3)  ;  5  (xi.  5)  ;  5,  6  (xv.  6). 

XXXIII.  5,6  (iv.  i);    10,  II  (v.  I). 

XXXIV.  12-16  (xix.  6).     Ps.  XXXVI.  3  (xvi.  7). 
XXXVII.  II  (xix.  6).     Ps.  XL.  7,  8  (viii.  4). 

XLV.  7  (viii.  3,  xxvi.  3).     Ps.  XLVII.  7  (xxi.  3). 
L.   14  (xxii.  6)  ;   21  (v.  4). 

LI.  Title  (xvii.  3)  ;    4  (xv.  2)  ;    4,  5,  7,  9,  14   (xv. 
6)  ;  5  (vi-  3)  ;  7-12  (xi.  5)  ;  8  (xvii.  3)  ;  8,  10, 
12  (xvii.  3)  ;  8,  12  (xviii.  4)  ;  8,  12,  14  (xviii. 
4)  ;  14  (xvii.  3)  ;  the  whole  Psalm  (xv.  6). 
LXI.  8  (xxii.  5).     Ps.  LXII.  8  (xxi.  i). 


198  APPENDIX. 

Psalms 

LXV.  2  (xxi.  3).     Ps.  LXVI.  13,  14  (xxii.  5,  6). 
LXXII.   17  (XXV.  5). 

LXXIII.   15  (xviii.  4)  ;  the  whole  Psalm  (v.  5). 
LXXVI.   10  (v.  4);   II  (xxii.  6). 
LXXVII.   i-io  (xviii.  4)  ;  1-12  (v.  5,  xviii.  3). 
LXXXI.  II,  12  (v.  6).     Ps.  LXXXII.  3,  4  (xxiii.  2). 
LXXXVIII.  The  whole  Psalm  (xviii.  3,  4  [twice]). 
LXXXIX.  30-34  (xix.  6)  ;   31,  32  (xvii.  3)  ;  31-33  (xi.  5), 
XC.  2  (ii.  i).     Ps.  XCIV.  8-1 1  (v.  I). 
C.  2,  3  (vii.  I).     Ps.  CII.  28  (xxv.  5). 
cm.  13  (xii.  I).     Ps.  CIV.  24  (iv.  I,  V.  i). 
CVII.  The  whole  Psalm  (xxi.  5). 

ex.   I  (viii.  8)  ;  3  (x.  i).     Ps.  CXIII.   5,  6  (vii.  i). 
CXV.  3  (ii.  i).     Ps.  CXVI.  12,  13  (xvi.  2). 
CXIX.  4-6  (xix.  6)  ;  6,  59,  106  (xv.  2) ;  32  (xviii.  3)  ; 
68  (ii.  2,  xxi.  i)  ;  71  (xx.  i)  ;   loi,  104,   128 
(xix.  6)  ;  105,  130  (i.  7)  ;  128  (xv.  2). 
CXXII.  9  (xxiii.  3). 
CXXX.  3  (xvi.  5)  ;  4  (xviii.  3). 
CXXXII.  2-5  (xxii.  6).     Ps.  CXXXV.  6  (v.  i). 
CXLIII.  2  (xvi.  5,  6). 
CXLV.  3  (ii.  I)  ;  7  (V.  I)  ;   17  (ii.  2,  v.  i). 
CXLVIL  5  (ii.  2). 

PROVERBS, 

(13  Citations.) 
Chapter 

I.  20,  21,  24  (xxi.  6).     Chap.  II.  17  (xxiv.  i). 
VIII.  15,  16  (xxiii.  2)  ;  34  (xxi.  6). 
XI.  14  (xxxi.  2).     Chap.  XIV.  26  (xii.  i). 
XV.  3  (v.  I).     Chap.  XVI.  4  (ii.  I,  iii.  3)  ;  33  (iii.  i.) 
XX.  9  (vi.  5)  ;  Chap.  XXII.  19-21  (i.  i). 
XXVIII.  13  (xv.  6). 

ECCLESIASTES, 

(12  Citations.) 

V.   I,  2  (xxi.  3)  ;  4,  5  (xxi.  5)  ;  4-6  (xxii.  5). 
VII.  20  (vi.  5) ;  29  (iv.  2  [twice],  vi.  2,  ix.  2j  xix.  i). 
XII.  7  (iv.  2,  xxxii.  i)  ;  14  (xxxiii.  i). 


APPENDIX.  199 

SONG  OF  SONGS. 

Chapter 

I.  4  (x.  i).     Chap.  V.  2,  3,  4,  6  (xvii.  3)  ;    2,  3,  6 
(xviii.  4). 

L  AMENTA  TIONS. 

III.  31  (xii.  i)  ;  39(vi.  6). 

ISAIAH. 

(48  Citations.) 

I.   12  (xvi.  7)  ;  16,  18  (xv.  4). 
II.  3  (xxvi.  2).     Chap.  VI.  3  (ii.  i)  ;  9,  10  (v.  6). 
VIII.   14  (v.  6)  ;   19,  20  (i.  i)  ;  20  (i.  8,  xx.  2). 
IX.  6,  7  (xxx.  i)  ;  7  (xxv.  2). 
X.  6,  7  (v.  2) ;  6,  7,  12  (v.  4). 
XIX.  21  (xxi.  5,  xxii.  5).     Chap.  XXIX.   13  (xvi.  i). 
XXX.  22  (xv.  2).     Chap.  XL.   13-17  (vii.  i). 
XLII.   I  (viii.  i)  ;  6  (vii.  3)  ;  8  (xxvi.  3). 
XLIII.  3-5,  14  (v.  7). 
XLIX.  23  (xx.  4,  xxiii.  3,  xxxi.  2). 
L.  10  (xviii.  3,  4,  [twice]). 
LIII.  4-6,  10-12  (xi.  3)  ;   10  (viii.  i). 
LIV.  7-10  (xviii.  4). 

LV.  4,   5  (viii.  i)  ;  7  (xv.  4)  ;  10.  ^  (v-  3)- 
LVI.  2,  4,  6,  7  (xxi.  7)  ;  7  (xxi.  6). 
LVIII.   13  (xxi.  8  [twice]).     Chap.  LIX.  21  (i.  5,  xxv.  3). 
LXIII.   14  (v.  i)  ;  17  (xvii.  3). 
LXIV.   5,  7r  9  (xvii.  3)  ;  6  (xvi.  5)  ;  7  (xvi.  3). 
LXV.  16  (xxii.  2).     Chap.  LXVI.  2  (xiv.  2,  xxi.  5). 

JEREMIAH. 

(20  Citations.) 

IV.  2  (xxii.  3,  4).     Chap.  V.  7  (xxii.  2). 
VIII.  9  (xx.  2). 

X.  7  (xxi.  i)  ;  10  (ii.  i)  ;   12  (iv.  i)  ;  25  (xxi.  6). 

XIV.  9  (xii.  i).     Chap.  XVII.  9  (vi.  2). 

XXIII.  6  (xi.  i)  ;  23,  24  (ii,  i). 

XXXI.  3   (xvii.  2)  ;    18,   19  (xv.  2)  ;  33  (xix.  7)  ;    33,  34 

(vii.  6)  ;  35  (v.  2). 

XXXII.  40  (xvii.  2,  xviii.  4). 

XLIV.  25,  26  (xxii.  6). 


200  APPENDIX. 

EZEKIEL. 

(14  Citations.) 
Chapter 

XI.  5  (ii.  2)  ;   19  (x.  i). 
XVI.   20,  21  (xxv.  2)  ;  61-63  (xv.  3). 
XVII.   16,  18,  19  (xxii.  4).     Chap.  XVIII.  30,  31  (xv.  2). 
XXXVI.   26  (x.  i)  ;  26,  27  (vii.  3,  xvi.  3)  ;  27  (x.  i,  2,  xix. 
7);  31  (XV.  2);  31,32  (xv.  3). 

DANIEL, 

(7  Citations.) 

III.  27  (v.  3)  ;   29  (xx.  4). 

IV.  25,  35  (ii.  2)  ;  34,  35  (v.  i). 

IX.  24,  26  (viii.  5,  xi.  3)  ;  27  (xix.  3). 

HOSEA, 

(23  Citations  from  the  Minor  Prophets.) 

I.  4  (xvi.  7)  ;  7  (v.  3).     Chap.  II.  21,  22  (v.  3). 
V.    II  (xx.  2).     Chap.  XIV.  2,  4  (xv.  3). 

II.    12  (xxi.  5)  ;    12,  13  (xv.  2). 

AMOS. 
II.  7  (xxiv.  4).     Chap.  V.    15  (xv.  2)  ;  21,  22  (xvi.  7). 
IX.   8,  9  (v.  7). 

MICAH. 

III.   II  (xviii.  i).     Chap.  VI.  8  (xvi.  i). 
VII.   7-9  (xviii.  4). 

NAHUM. 
I.  2,  3  (ii.  i). 

HAG  GAL 
II.    14  (xvi.  7). 

ZECHARIAH. 
XII.    10  (xv.  i).     Chap.  XIII.  2,  3  (xx.  4). 


APPENDIX. 


201 


Chapter 


MALA  CHI. 


I.   II  (xxi.  6).     Chap.  II.   n,  12  (xxiv.  3)  ;   15  (xxiv.  2] 
III.  6  (ii.  i).     Chap.  IV.  2,  3  (viii.  8). 


Summary  of  Citations  from  the  Old  Testament. 


I.  Pentateuch. 


II.  Histories 


III.  Poetical  Books . 


IV.  Prophecies, 


.Genesis 48 

Exodus 24 

Leviticus 6 

Numbers 2 

Deuteronomy 22 

.Joshua 3 

Judges o 

Ruth I 

I  and  2  Samuel. ...  15 

I  and  2  Kings 15 

I  and  2  Chronicles.  16 

Ezra    4 

Nehemiah 8 

Esther 2 

•  Job 25' 

Psahns 98 

Proverbs 13 

Ecclesiastes 12 

Song  of  Songs 3  | 

Lamentations 2  J 

Isaiah 48 

Jeremiah 20 

Ezekiel 14 

Daniel 7 

Hosea 5 

Joel 2 

Amos 4 

Obadiah o 

Jonah o 

Micah 3 

Nahum.    i 

Habakkuk o 

Zephaniah o 

Haggai i 

Zechariah 2 

Malachi 5 


\  102 


64 


1-431 


h53 


202  APPENDIX. 


THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
MATTHEW. 

(109  Citations.) 
Chapter 

I.   18-20  (xxiv.  5).     Chap.  II.  4,  5  (xxiii.  3,  xxxi.  2). 

III.  II  (xxvii.  3,  xxviii.  2)  ;  15  (viii.  4)  ;  16,  17  (ii.  3); 

17  (xi.  3). 

IV.  4  (v.  3)  ;  4,  7,  10  (i.  i)  ;  9,  10  (xxi.  i)  ;  10  (xxi. 

2). 
V.    5  (xix.  6)  ;   16  (xvi.  2)  ;   17  (viii.  4)  ;   17,  18  (xxi. 
7);  17-19  (xix.  5);   17,  38,   39  (xix.  4);   18  (i. 
8)  ;  3ij  32  (xxiv.  5)  ;  34,  37  (xxii.  2). 
VI.  2,  5,  16  (xvi.   7)  ;  6,  II  (xxi.  6)  ;   12  (xi.  5)  ;   12, 
14,  15  (xxi.  3)  ;  30  (xiv.  3)  ;  30,  32  (xii.  i). 
VII.  6  (xxix.  8,  XXX.  3)  ;  22  (x.  4)  ;  22,  23  (xviii.  i). 
VIII.  9,  10  (xxiii.  2)  ;   10  (xiv.  3). 

IX.    15  (xxi.  5).     Chap.  X.  28  (iv.  2)  ;  29-31  (v.  i). 
XI.  21,  23  (iii.  2)  ;   25,  26  (iii.  7). 
XII.   1-13   (xxi.   8)  ;    25  (xx.    4)  ;  36   (xv.  4)  ;   36,  37 

(xxxiii.  i). 
XIII.   12  (v.  6)  ;   19  (xxi.  5)  ;,20,  21   (x.  4)  ;  24-30,  47 
(xxv.  5)  ;  40-42  (viii.  4)  ;  47  (xxv.  2). 
XV.   9  (xvi.  I,  XX.  2,  xxi.  I,  xxix.  4)  ;  19  (vi.  4). 
XVI.    18  (xxv.  5)  ;   19  (xxiii.  3,  xxx.  2). 
XVII.   12  (iii.  I,  ix.  i). 

XVIIL   15-17  (xx.  4)  ;   17  (xxiii.  3,  xxx.  4)  ;  17,   18  (xxx. 
2)  ;  17-20  (xxxi.  3). 
XIX.   5,  6  (xxiv.  i)  ;  6,  8,  9  (xxiv.  6)  ;  9  (xxiv.  5)  ;   11, 

12  (xxii.  7). 
XXII.   14  (x.  4)  ;  29,  31  (i.  10)  ;  37-40  (xix.  2). 

XXIII.  8-10  (xx.  2,  xxv.  6)  ;  23  (xvi.  7). 

XXIV.  36,  42-44  (xxxiii.  3). 

XXV.  21  (xxxiii.  2)  ;  21,  23  (xvi,  6)  ;  29  (v.  6)  ;  31  to 
end  (xxxiii,  2)  ;  41  (iii.  3,  vi.  6)  ;  41-45  (xvi.  7). 
XXVI.  26,  27  (xxix.  2)  ;  26-28  (xxix.  3,  5)  ;  27,  28  (xxvii. 
2,  3)  ;  29  (xxix.  5) ;  37,  38  (viii.  4)  ;  69-72 
(xviii.  4)  ;  70,  72,  74  (xvii.  3) ;  75  (xi.  5)  ;  the 
whole  chapter  (viii.  4). 


APPENDIX.  203 

Chapter 

XXVII.  46  (viii.  4)  ;  the  whole  chapter  (viii.  4). 
XXVIIl.   18  (viii.  3)  ;   18-20  (XXX.  i)  ;   19  (ii-  3»  vii.  6,  xix. 
5,xxvii.  I,  4,  xxviii.   i,  4)  ;   19,  20  (vii.  6,  xxv. 
3,  5,  xxvii.  3,  xxviii.  i,  2). 

MARK. 

(i8  Citations ) 

I.  4  (xxviii.i)  ;  15  (xv.  i).     Chap.  IV.  23  (xxix.  4). 
VI.   18  (xxiv.  4)  ;  26  (xxii.  7)  ;  52  (xvii.  3). 
VII.  4  (xxviii.  3).     Chap.  IX.  24  (xviii.  3). 

X.  13-16  (xxviii.  4).     Chap.  XI.  24  (xxi.  3). 
XII.  33  (xxi.  i).     Chap.  XIII.  35-37  (xxxiii.  3). 
XIV.  22-24  (xxix.  3)  ;  66  to  end  (v.  5). 

XVI.  14  (xvii.  3)  ;   15,  16  (vii.  3,  xxviii.  4)  ;   19  (viii.  4). 

LUKE. 

(41  Citations.) 

I.  3,  4  (i-  0  ;  6  (XV.  2)  ;  20  (xi.  5)  ;  27,  31,  35  (viii. 
2)  ;  33  (viii.  i)  ;  35  (viii.  2)  ;  74,  75  (xx.  3)- 
III.   14  (xxiii.  2).     Chap.  IV.   16  (xxi.  6). 
VII.  30  (xxviii.  5).     Chap.  X.  20  (iii.  8). 
XII.   13,  14  (xxxi.  5)  ;  35,  36  (xxxiii.  3). 
XIII.  3,  5  (XV.  3)- 
XVI.  23,  24  (xxxii.  i)  ;  25,  26  (xxi.  4)  ;  29,  31  (i.  2). 

XVII.  3,  4  (xv.  6)  ;  5  (xiv.  i)  ;  10  (vii.  i,  xvi.  4,  5,  xix.  6). 
XVIII.   15  (xxviii.  4)  ;  15,  16  (x.  3).    Chap.  XIX.  8  (xv.  5). 

XXI.  27,  28  (xxxiii.  3). 
XXII.   19,  20  (xxix.  3)  ;  20  (vii.  4,  6)  ;    31,  32   (xiv.  3)  ; 
32  (xi.  5,  xvii.  2,  xviii.  4)  ;  44  (viii.  4). 

XXIII.  43  (iv.  2,  xxxii.  i). 

XXIV.  6,  39  (xxix.  6) ;  27,  44  (i-  3)  ;  39  (ii-  0  J  47  (xv.  i) 

JOHN. 

(80  Citations.) 

I.   I,  14  (viii.  2)  ;    2,  3  (iv.  i)  ;   12  (xi.  2,  xii.  i,  xiv. 
2)  ;   14  (viii.  3)  ;   I4>  18  (ii.  3)  ;   16  (xxvi.  i)  ;  33 
(xxviii.  2). 
in.  3,  5  (x.  3)  ;  5,  8,  (xxviii.  6)  ;  8  (x.  3)  ;   13  (viii.  7)  ; 
16  (vii.  3,  viii.  l)  ;  34  (viii.  3). 


204  APPENDIX. 

Chapter 

IV.  21  (xxi.  6)  ;    22  (x.  4,  xx.  2)  ;    23,  24  (xxi.  6)  ;    24 

(ii.  I  [twice])  ;  42  (xiv.  2). 
V.  22,  27  (viii.  3,  xxxiii.  i)  ;  23  (xxi.  2)  ;  25  (x.  2)  ;  26 
(ii.  2)  ;  28,  29  (xxxii.  3)  ;  39  (i.  8)  ;    39,  46  (i.  8). 
VI.  yj  (x.  I,  2)  ;    37,  39  (viii.  8)  ;    44,  45  (vii.  3,  x.  i)  ; 
44,  65  (ix.  3)  ;    45  (i.  6)  ;    64,  65  (iii.  6)  ;    64-66 
(x.  4).     Chap.  VII.  38,  39  (XX.  I). 
VIII.  24  (x.  4)  ;  34  (xx.  3)  ;  34,  36  (ix.  4)  ;   41  (xviii.  i) 
47  (iii.  6)  ;  56  (vii.  5). 

X.  15,  16  (viii.  8)  ;    18  (viii.  4)  ;    26  (iii.  6)  ;    28  (xi.  5 

xvii.  2)  ;  28,  29  (xvii.  i).    Chap.  XIII.   18  (iii.  4) 
XIV.  6  (x.  4,  xxi.  2)  ;    13,  14  (xxi.  3)  ;    16  (viii.  8) ;    16 

17  (xvii.  2). 
XV.  4-6  (xvi.  3)  ;  5  (ix.  3)  ;    8  (xvi.  2)  ;   13,  15  (viii.  8) 
26  (ii.  3).     Chap.  XVI.  2  (xvi.  l)  ;   13,  14  (i.  5). 
XVII.  2  (viii.  5)  ;    3  (x.  4)  ;    6  (viii.  i,  8)  ;    9  (iii.  6)  ;    11, 

24  (xvii.  2)  ;   17  (viii.  8,  xiii.  i)  ;  20  (xxi.  4). 
XVIII.  36  (xxxi.  5).     Chap.  XIX.   11  (iii.  i). 
XX.  21-23  (xxx.  2)  ;  25,  27  (viii.  4). 
XXI.  15-17  (v.  5). 

ACTS. 

(92  Citations.) 

I.  II  (viii.  4)  ;  25  (xxxii.  i). 
II.  23  (iii.  I,  v.  2,  4)  ;   23,  24,  27    (viii.  4)  ;   36  (viii. 

3)  ;  38,  39  (x-  3»  xxviii.  4)  ;  38,  41  (xxviii.  6)  ; 
39  (xxv.  2)  ;  41  (xxviii.  3)  ;  42  (xxi.  5,  xxi.  6)  ; 
42,  46  (xxvi.  2)  ;  44,  45  (xxvi.  2)  ;  47  (xxv.  2). 

III.  19  (xxxiii.  2)  ;  21  (xxix.  6,  xxxii.  i)  ;  22  (viii.  i). 

IV.  12  (x.  3,  4)  ;   19  (xx.  2)  ;  27,  28  (iii.  i,  v.  4). 
V.  4  (xxvi.  3)  ;  29  (xx.  2).     Chap.  VII.  2  (ii.  2).  . 

VIII.   13,  23  (xxviii.  5)  ;   37,  38  (xxviii.  4). 

X.   I,  2  (xxiii.   2)  ;    2  (xxi.  6)  ;    2,  4,   22,  31,  45,    47 
(xxviii.   5)  ;    33  (xxi.  5)  ;    38  (viii.  3)  ;    42    (viii. 

4)  ;  44  (xi.  i). 

XI.  18  (xv.  i)  ;   29,  30  (xxvi.  2). 

XIII.  36  (xxxii.  i)  ;  37  (viii.  4)  ;  38,  39  (xi.  i)  ;  39   (xix. 
6)  ;  42  (xxi.  6). 


APPENDIX.  205 

Chapter 

XIV.   II,  15  (ii.  i);  16  (v.  4). 

XV.  2,  4,  6  (xxxi.  i)  ;  2,  4,  22,  23,  25  (xxxi.  2)  ;   10,  11 
(xx.  i)  ;   II   (vii.  6,  xiv.  2)  ;   15  (i.  8,  9)  ;   15-16 
(i.  9)  ;   15.  19.  24,  27-31  (xxxi.  3)  ;    18  (ii.  2,  iii. 
2,  V.  i)  ;  21  (xxi.  5). 
XVI.  4  (xxxi.  3)  ;  31  (xiv.  2)  ;  33  (xxviii.  3). 
XVII.  II  (xx.  2,  xxxi.  4)  ;    24  (iv.  i,  xxi.  i)  ;    24,  25  (ii. 
2,  vii.   I)  ;    25  (xxi.   i)  ;    25,  26,  28  (v.  i)  26  ; 
(vi.  3)  ;  30,  31  (xv.  3)  ;  31  (viii-  h  xxxiii.  i). 
XX.  7  (xxi.  7,  xxix.  3)  ;   17,  28  (xxx.  i)  ;  21  (xv.  i)  ;  28 
(viii.  7)  ;  32  (xiii.  i,  xiv.  i). 

XXIII.  12,  14  (xxii.  7). 

XXIV.  14  (xiv.  2)  ;   15  (xxxii.  3). 
XXV.  9,  10,  II  (xxiii.  4). 

XXVI.  6,  7  (xvi.  3)  ;   18  (x.  i,  xx.  i). 
XXVII.  31.  44  (v.  3). 
XXVIII.  25  (i.  10);  26,  27  (v.  6). 


J^OMANS. 

(185  Citations.) 

I.  3,  4  (viii.  2);    II,   12,   14  (xxvi.   i)  ;  16,   17  (xiv. 

i)  ;   19,  20  (i.  i)  ;  20  (iv.  i,  xxi.  i)  ;  24,   26,  28 

(v.  6)  ;  25  (xxi.  2)  ;  32  (i.  i,  xx.  4). 

II.   I  (i.  i)  ;   5,  6  (xxxiii.  2)  ;   14,    15   (i.   i,  iv.  2,  xix. 

i)  ;   15  (vi.  6)  ;   16  (xxxiii.  i)  ;  28,  29  (xxvii.  3). 

III.  2  (i.  3)  ;  9,  19  (vi.  6);   10-12  (vi.  4)  ;   io-r9  (vi. 

2)  ;  10,  12  (ix.  3)  ;  20  (xvi.  5,  xix.  6)  ;  20,  21 
(vii.  3)  ;  21-23,  30  (vii.  6)  ;  22,  24,  25,  27,  28 
(xi.  i)  ;  23  (vi.  2)  ;  24  (xi.  i,  3,  xv.  3)  ;  25,  26 
(viii.  5)  ;  26  (xi.  3)  ;  28  (xi.  2)  ;  31  (xix.  5). 

IV.  2,  4,  6  (xvi.  5)  ;  3,  6,  16,  17,  23,  24  (vii.  6)  ;  5-8 

(xi.  i)  ;   II  (vii.  5,  xiv.  i,  xxvii.  i,  xxviii.  1,5); 

11,  12  (xxviii.  4)  ;  19,  20  (xiv.  3)  ;  19-21  (v.3)  ; 
22-24  (xi.  6)  ;  25  (xi.  4). 

V.   I  (xi.  2)  ;   I,  2  (xx.    i);   i,  2,  5   (xviii.  3)  ;  2  (xii. 
i)  ;  2,5  (xviii.  i)  ;  6  (vi.  4,  ix.  3)  ;  8-10,  19  (xi. 

3)  ;  12  (xv.  4)  ;   12-20  (vii.  2)  ;   12,  15-19  (vi.  3)  ; 

12,  19  (xix.  l)  ;   17-19  (xi.  I)  ;   19  (viii.  5). 


20G  APPENDIX. 

Chapter 

VI.   I,  2  (xviii.  3)  ;  3,  4  (xxvii.  I,  xxviii.  i)  ;  5  (xxviii.  i)  ; 
5,  6  (xiii.  I,  xxvi.    i)  ;  6,  14   (xiii.   i)  ;  9  (viii.  4)  ; 

12,  14  (xix.  6)  ;  14  (xiii.  3,  xix.  6,  xx.  i)  ;  16-18 
(x.  i)  ;  18,  22  (ix.  4)  ;  22  (xvi.  2)  ;  23  (vi.  6,  xv.  4). 

VII.   2,  3  (xxiv.  5)  ;    5,  7,    8,  25   (vi.  5)  ;   7  (xix.  6)  ;   9,    14, 

24  (xix.  6)  ;  12  (ii.  2)  ;  12,  22,  25  (xix.  6)  ;  14,  17, 
18,  23  (vi.  5)  ;  15,  18  (xvi.  5)  ;  15,  18,  19,  21,  23 
(ix.  4)  ;  18  (vi.  4)  ;  18,  23  (xiii.  2)  ;  23  (xiii.  3)  ;  24, 

25  (xix.  6). 

VIII.  1  (xv.  4,  xix.  6,  XX.  i)  ;  i,  12  (xviii.  3)  ;  2  (x.  l)  ;  3 
(vii.  3)  ;  3;  4  (xix.  6)  ;  7  (vi.  4,  ix.  3,  x.  2)  ;  9  (x. 
3)  ;  9,  14  (viii.  8)  ;  13  (xiii.  i)  ;  14,  15  (xx.  1)  ;  15 
(xii.  i)  ;  15,  16  (xviii.  2)  ;  17  (xii.  i)  ;  18  (xvi.  5) ;  20 
(vi.  6)  ;  23-25  (xxxiii.  3)  ;  26  (xxi.  3)  ;  28  (v.  7,  xx. 
1)  ;  28-39  (iii-  6) ;  30  (iii-  5>  6,  x.  i ,  xi.  i ,  4)  ;  32  (xi. 
3)  ;  33  (iii-  8)  ;  33-39  (xvii.  2)  ;  34  (viii.  4,  8). 
IX.  5  (ii.  2,  viii.  2)  ;    11  (x.    2)  ;   11,    13,    16  (iii.  5)  ;   11, 

13,  16,  18  (iii.  2)  ;  15,  18  (iii.  i)  ;  16  (xvi.  7)  ;  17 
(v.  i)  ;  17,  18,  21,  22  (iii.  7);  20  (iii.  8)  ;  22,  23 
(iii.  3,  xxxiii.  2). 

X.  2  (xvi.  i)  ;  5  (vii.  2,  xix.  i)  ;  6,  9  (vii.  3)  ;  12  (xxi. 
i);  14,  17  (xiv.  i);  15  (xxiii.  3)  ;  17  (xx.  2). 
XI.  3,  4  (xxv.  4)  ;  5,  6,  20  (iii.  8)  ;  7,  8  (v.  6)  ;  7  (x.  l)  ; 
16  (xxv.  2)  ;  18-22  (xxv.  5)  ;  32  (vi.  i)  ;  32-34  (v. 
4);  33  (iii.  I,  8  [twice]  )  ;  33,  34  (ii.  2)  ;  36  (ii. 
I,  2).     Chap.  XII.  2  (xvi.  i). 

XIII.  I  (xxiii.  4)  ;    I,   2,  4  (xxiii.   2)  ;    1-4  (xxiii.    i)  ;    1-8 

(xx.  4)  ;  3,4  (xx.  4)  ;  4  (xxiii.  2)  ;  5  (xxiii.  4)  ;  6, 
7  (xxiii.  4)  ;  8,  9  (xix.  2)  ;  8-10  (xix.  5). 

XIV.  4  (xx.  2)  ;  9,  10  (viii.  4)  ;    10,  12  (xxxiii.  i)  ;  17  (xviii. 

3)  ;  23  (xx.  2). 
XV.  4  (i.  I,  8) ;  8  (xxvii.  l)  ;  9-12  (xxv.  2)  ;    13  (xviii.  3)  ; 
18,  19  (viii.  8). 
XVI.  26  (xiv.  2)  ;  27  (ii.  i). 

/.   CORINTHIANS. 

(88  Citations.) 

I.   2  (xxv.  2)  ;  21  (i.  i)  ;   30  (viii.  l)  ;   30,  31  (xi.  i). 
II.   5  (xxxi.  4)  ;   9,  10,  12  (i.  6)  ;    10-12  (i.  5)  ;    lo,  12   (x. 
i)  ;   12  (xviii.  3)  ;    13,  14  (i.  i)  ;    14  (ix.  3,  x.  2). 


APPENDIX.  207 

Chapter 

III.  21,  22,  23  (xxvi.   l). 

IV.  I  (xxvii.  4)  ;    i,  2  (xxiii.  3). 

V.    I  (xxiv.  4)  ;    I,    5,    II,  13   (xx.   4)  ;   4,    5,  13   (xxx.  4)  ; 
6,  7  (xxv.  4)  ;  6,  7,  13  (xxix.  8)  ;  7  (vii.  5,  xix.  3)  ; 
the  whole  chapter  (xxx.  3). 
VI.  3  (xxxiii.  i)  ;   II  (xiii.  i). 

VII.  2,  9  (xxii.  7,  xxiv.  2)  ;   5   (xxi.  5)  ;    14  (xxv.  2,  xxviii. 
4);   15  (xxiv.  6);    19  (xix.  6);  23  (xx.  2,  xxii.  7); 
36-38  (xxiv.  3)  ;  39  (xxiv.  3). 
VIII.  4,  6  (ii.  i)  ;  6  (xxvi.  3).     Chap.  IX.  8,  9,  10  (xix.  4). 
X.   1-4  (vii.   5,  xxvii.  5);  6  (xxix.  4)  ;   16  (xxvii.  i,  xxix. 
7)  ;   16,  17,  21  (xxix.  i)  ;   16,  21  (xxvii.  i). 
XI.    13,  14  (i.  6)  ;  20  (xxvi.  2,  xxix.  3)  ;   20,  23  (xxvii.  4)  ; 
23  (xxvii.    i)  ;  23-25  (vii.  6)  ;  23-26  (xxix.    i,   3)  ; 
23-29    (xxi.    5)  ;  24-26    (xxix.   2,  6)  ;  25    (vii.  4)  ; 
25,    26  (xxvii.    i)  ;    25-29    (xxix.  4)  ;     26-28  (xxix. 
5)  ;  27-29  (xxix.  8)  ;  27  seq.    (xxx.   3)  ;   28   (xxix. 
7)  ;  30,  32  (xi.  5)  ;  32  (xvii.  3). 
XII.  7  (xxvi.  i)  ;    13  (xxv.  2)  ;   13  (xxvii.  3,  xxviii.  i,  xxix. 
i)  ;  28  (xxv.  3,  xxx.  i)  ;  28,  29  (xxiii.  3). 

XIII.  3  (xvi.  7)  ;   12  (xxv.  5). 

XIV.  6,  9,  II,  12,  24,  27,  28  (i.  8)  ;  14  (xxi.  3)  ;  26,  40  (i.  6). 
XV.  3,  4  (viii.  4)  ;  21,  22,  45,  49  (vi.  3);  25,   26  (viii.  8)  ; 

42  (xxxii.  3)  ;  42-44  (xxxii.  2)  ;   51,   52  (xxxii.  2)  ; 
54-57  (xx.  i).     Chap.  XVI.    I,  2  (xxi.  7)  ;  22  (x.  4). 


//.   CORINTHIANS. 

(38  Citations  ) 

I.    12  (xviii.    2)  ;  21,   22   (xviii.    2)  ;  23  (xxii.    I,   2)  ;  24 

(xx.  2,  xxxi.  4). 
II.  6,  7,  8  (xxx.  2)  ;  8  (xv.  6)  ;    15,  16  (v.  6). 
III.   3,  6  (x.  I)  ;   5  (xvi.   3)  ;  6-9  (vii.  5)  ;   13,    17,   18  (xx. 

i)  ;   18  (xiii.  3).     Chap.  IV.   13  (viii.  8,  xiv.  i). 
V.    I,  6,  8  (xxxii.  i)  ;    10  (xxxiii.    i)  ;    10,  11  (xxxiii.   3)  ; 

19,  21  (xi.  i)  ;  21  (xi.  3). 
VI,   14  (xxiv.  3)  ;    14-16  (xxix.   8)  ;    16  (xix.   6)  ;    17  (xix. 
3)  ;   18  (xii.  i). 
VII.  I  (xiii.  I,  3,  xviii.  3)  ;   u  (xv.  2). 


208  APPENDIX. 

Chapter 

VIII.   12  (xvi.  6)  ;  the  chapter  (xxvi.  2). 

IX.  2  (xvi.  2)  ;  the  chapter  (xxvi.  2). 

XI.  3  (vi.  i).     Chap.  XII.  7-9  (v.  5). 
XIII.  14  (ii.  3,  xxi.  2). 


GALATIANS. 

(53  Citations.) 

I.  4  (xx.  i)  ;  6-8  (x.  4)  ;  8,  9  (i.  6)  ;   10  (xx.  2). 
II.  4,  5  (xx.  2)  ;    16  (xi.  I,  4,  xix.  6  [twice])  ;  20  (xiv.  2). 

III.  7-9,  14  (vii.  5)  ;  8  (xi.  4)  ;  9,  13,  14  (xi.  6)  ;  9,  14  (xx. 

I,  xxviii.  4)  ;  10  (vi.  6,  vii.  2)  ;  10,  12  (xix.  i) ;  11 
(vii.  3)  ;  12  (vii.  2)  ;  13  (xix.  6,  xx.  i)  ;  14,  16  (vii. 
6)  ;  17  (xxvii.  i)  ;  21  (vii,  3,  xix.  7)  ;  24  (xix.  6)  ; 
27  (xxviii.  I,  6). 

IV.  I,  2,  3  (xix.  3)  ;  I,  2,  3,  6,-]  (xx.  i)  ;  4  (viii.  2  [twice], 

4,  xi.  4) ;  4,  5  (viii.  6,  xii.  i,  xix.  6)  ;  6  (ii.  3,  xii.  i). 
V.   I  (xx.  1,2);  6  (xi.  2)  ;   13  (xx.  3)  ;   14,  16,  18-23  (xix. 
6)  ;  17  (vi.  5,  ix.  4,  xiii.  2,  xvi.  4,  5)  ;  22,  23  (xvL 
5) ;  24  (xiii.  i).     Chap.  VI.   10  (xxvi.  ij. 


EPHESIANS. 

(81  Citations.) 

I.  3,  4  (xviii.  3)  ;  4,  5  (iii-  6)  ;  4,  9  (iii-  5)  ;  4,  9>  n  ("i- 
5)  ;  5  (iii.  6,  xii.  i)  ;  5,  6  (iii.  3)  ;  6  (iii.  8,  xvi.  6)  ; 
6,  12  (iii.  5)  ;  7  (xi.  i,  3,  xv.  3)  ;  7-9  (viii.  8)  ;  10, 
II  (x.  i)  ;  10,  22,  23  (xxv.  i)  ;  II  (ii.  i,  iii.  i,  v.  i)  ; 
II,  14  (viii.  5)  ;  17,  18  (x.  i)  ;  17-19  (xiv.  i)  ;  19 
(x.  i)  ;  22  (xxv.  6). 

II.  I  (vi.  2)  ;  1-5  (x.  I)  ;  1,5  (ix.  3)  ;  2,  3  (vi.  4)  ;  2-5 
(ix.  3)  ;  3  (vi.  6)  ;  4,  5,  8,  9  (x.  2)  ;  5  (x.  2)  ;  5,  6 
(xxvi.  I)  ;  7  (xi.  3)  ;  7,  8  (xi.  i)  ;  8  (xiv.  i) ;  8,  9 
(xvi.  5)  ;  10  (iii.  6,  xvi.  2)  ;  12  (x.  4)  ;  13,  14  (xviii. 
2);  15  (xix.  3);  15-19  (vii.  6);  16  (xix.  3);  18 
(xxi.  2)  ;  19  (xxv.  2)  ;  20  (i.  2,  10,  xxxi.  4). 

III.  10  (v.  i)  ;  12  (xii.  i)  ;  15  (xxv.  2);  16-19  (xiii.  i, 
xxvi.  i)  ;   17-19  (xviii.  3). 


APPENDIX.  209 

Chapter 

IV.   lo  (xxxii.  i)  ;   ii,  12  (xxiii.  3)  ;   11-13  (xxv.  3)  ;   13  (ix. 

$)  ;   15,  16  (xiii.  3,  xxvi.    i)  ;   18  (vi.  6)  ;  24  (iv.  2)  ; 

28  (xxii.  7,  xxvi.  3)  ;  30  (xii.  i,  xvii.  3,  xviii.  2)  ;  30, 

31  (xviii.  4). 
V.  2  (viii.  5,  xi.  3)  ;   19  (xxi.   5)  ;  23  (viii.    i)  ;  23,  27,  32 

(xxv.  i)  ;  25,  26  (xxviii.  6)  ;  26  (xiii.  i). 
VI.  2  (xix.  5)  ;  2,  3  (xix.  6)  ;  16  (xiv.  3)  ;   18  (xxi.  3,  6). 


PHILIPPIANS. 

(18  Citations.) 

I.  6  (xvii.  i)  ;  II  (xvi.  2)  ;  15,  16,  18  (xvi.  7)  ;  23  (xxxii.  i). 
II.  6  (viii.  2)  ;  8  (viii.  4  [twice])  ;   12  (xvi.  3)  ;   13  (ix.  4,  x. 
I,  xvi.  3). 

III.  9  (xi.  i)  ;  10  (xiii.  i,  xxvi.  i)  ;  12  (xiii.  2)  ;  21  (xxxii.  3). 

IV.  6  (xxi.  3)  ;  13  (xvi.  3). 


COLOSSIANS, 

(31  Citations.) 

I.  II  (xiii.  i)  ;  13  (ix.  4,  xx.  i)  ;  16  (iv.  i)  ;  18  (xxv.  i, 
6)  ;  18,  19  (xxvi.  3)  ;  19  (viii.  3)  ;  19,  20  (viii.  5) ;  21 
(vi.  4)  ;  21,22  (xi.  4). 
II.  2  (xiv.  3)  ;  3  (viii.  3)  ;  9  (viii.  2)  ;  11,  12  (vii.  5,  xxviii. 
1,4);  13  (ix.  3)  ;  14,  16,  17  (xix.  3)  ;  15  (viii.  8)  ;  17 
(vii.  6,  xix.  3)  ;  18  (xxi.  2)  ;  19  (xxvi.  i)  ;  20-23  (xx. 
2)  ;  23  (xxi.  i). 

III.  10  (iv.  2)  ;  16  (i.  8,  xxi.  5)  ;  17  (xxi.  2). 

IV.  2  (xxi.  3). 


/.   THESSALONIANS. 

(11  Citations.) 

I.  9  (ii.  i)  ;   10  (xx.  i).     Chap.  II.    13  (i.  4,  xiv.  2). 
IV.   17  (xxxii.  2). 

V.  9  (iii.  5)  ;    9,  10  (iii.  6)  ;    11,  14  (xxvi.  i)  ;    12  (xxx.  i, 
4)  ;  23  (xiii.  2). 
14 


210  APPENDIX. 

//.   THESSALONIANS, 

(15  Citations.) 
Chapter 

^-  5-7  (xxxiii.  3)  ;  7-10  (xxxiii.  2)  ;  9  (vi.  6). 
II.  2  (i.  6)  ;  3,  4,  8,  9  (xxv.  6)  ;  4  (xxiii.  4)  ;   10-12  (v.  6)  ; 

13  (iii.  6  [twice],  xiii.  i)  ;   13,  14  (x.  i). 
III.  3  (xvii.  2) ;  6,  14,  15  (xxix.  8,  xxx.  4)  ;   14  (xx.  4). 


/   TIMOTHY. 

(30  Citations.) 

I.  13,  15  (xv.  5)  ;    17  (ii.  I   [twice])  ;    19,  20  (xx.  4)  ;    20 
(xxx.  3). 
II.   1,2  (xxi.  4,  xxiii.  4,  xxxi.  2)  ;  2  (xx.  4,  xxiii.  2)  ;   5  (viii. 
I,  2,  xxi.  2)  ;  5,6  (xi.  3)  ;  6  (viii.  i,  xi.  4)  ;  8  (xxi.  6). 

III.  15  (i.  5)  ;   16  (viii.  2). 

IV.  3  (xxiv.  3)  ;  8  (xiv.  2)  ;   10  (v.  7). 
V.  17  (xxx.  1)  ;  20  (xxx.  3)  ;  21  (iii.  3). 

VI.  I  (xvi.  2) ;  3-5  (xx.  4)  ;  15  (ii.  2  [twice])  ;  15,  16  (xxvi.  3). 


//.   TIMOTHY, 

(13  Citations.) 

I.  6  (xvi.  3)  ;  9  (iii.  5,  x.  2)  ;  9,  10  (x.  1). 

II.  12  (xxvi.  i)  ;    18,  19  (xvii.  2)  ;    19  (iii.  4)  ;    19,  20  (iii. 

7). 

III.  15  (i.  I);  15-17  (i-  6);  i6(i.  2,  4). 

IV.  2  (xxi.  5). 

TITUS. 

(20  Citations.) 

I.  3  (xxiii.  4)  ;  10,  11,  13  (xx.  4)  ;  15  (vi.  2,  xvi.  7). 
II.   5,  9-12  (xvi.  2)  ;   II,  12,  14  (xviii.  3)  ;   14  (iii-  6,  xx.  i). 

III.  3-5  (ix.  3)  ;   4,  5  (x.  2)  ;   4-7  (xi-  4)  ;    5  (xvi.  7,  xxvii. 

2,  xxviii.  I,  6,  7)  ;    5,  7  (xi.  i)  ;  5-7  (xvi.  5)  ;  10  (^x- 
4,  xxx.  4). 


APPENDIX.  211 

HEBREWS. 

(84  Citations.) 
Chapter 

I.  I  (i.  I)  ;   1,2  (i.  i)  ;  2  (iv.  i,  viii.  i)  ;    3  (v.  i)  ;  8,  9, 
(xxvi.  3)  ;    14  (xii.  i). 

II.  14,  16,  17  (viii.  2). 

IV.  2  (xxi.  5)  ;   13  (ii.  2)  ;   14,  16  (xx.  i)  ;  15  (viii.  2). 

V.  4  (xxiii.  3,  xxvii.  4)  5  4,  5  (viii-  3)  ;    5»  6  (viii.  i)  ;   13, 

14  (xiv.  3). 

VI.  4,  5  (x.  4)  ;    10  (xvi.  6)  ;    11,  12  (xiv.  3,  xvi.  3,  xviii. 

3)  ;    II,  19  (xviii.  2)  ;    12  (xii.  i)  ;   16  (xxii.  2)  ;    17 
(iii.  i)  ;   17,  18  (xviii.  2). 
VII.  22  (vii.  4,  viii.  3)  ;    23,  24,  27  (xxix.  2)  ;    25  (viii.  4, 

xvii.  2)  ;  26  (viii.  3). 
VIII.   10  (xix.  7)  ;  the  whole  chapter  (vii.  5). 
IX.    10,  19-22  (xxviii.  3)  ;   12-15  (xvii.  2)  ;    12,  15  (viii.  5)  ; 
14  (viii.  7)  ;   14,  16  (viii.  5) ;   15-17  (vii.  4)  ;  22,  25, 
26,  28  (xxix.  2)  ;    24  (viii.  4)  ;    the  whole  chapter 
(vii.  5,  xix.  3). 
X.   I  (xix.  3)  ;    5-10  (viii.  4)  ;    10,  14  (xi.  3,  xvii.  2)  ;   11, 
12,  14,  18  (xxix.  2)  ;   14  (viii.  5,  xi.  5)  ;   19-22  (xx. 
I)  ;  22  (xiv.  3)  ;    24,  25  (xxvi.  3)  ;    25  (xxi.  6)  ;    39 
(xiv.  i)  ;  the  whole  chapter  (vii.  5). 
XI.  3  (iv.  i)  ;  4  (xvi.  6)  ;  4,  6  (xvi.  7)  ;  6  (ii.  i)  ;   13  (vii. 

5,  xiv.  2). 
XII.  2  (viii.  8,  xiv.  3)  ;  6  (xii.  i)  ;   14  (xiii.  i)  ;  22-28  (vii. 
6)  ;  23  (ix.  5,  xxxii.  i)  ;  24  (viii.  3)  ;  28  (xxi.  3,5); 
28,  29  (xix.  6). 
XIII.  4  (xxiv.  3)  ;    7,  17,  24  (xxx.  i)  ;    8  (vii.  6,  viii.  6,  xi. 
6}  ;   17  (xx.  4)  ;  20,  21  (xvi.  6,  xvii.  2)  ;  21  (xvi.  i). 

JAMES, 

(21  Citations.) 

I.  6,  7  (xxi.  3)  ;  13,  17  (iii.  i)  ;  13,  14,  17  (v.  4)  ;  14  (ix. 
i);  14,  I5(vi.  4);  17  (ii.  i);  22  (xxi.  5);  23-25 
(xix.  6)  ;  25  (xix.  2). 
II.  8  (xix.  5);  8,  10-12  (xix.  2);  10,  II  (xix.  5);  11 
(xix.  6)  ;  17,  22,  26  (xi.  2)  ;  18,  22  (xvi.  2). 

III.  2  (vi.  5).  Chap.  IV.  12  (xx.  2). 

V.  12  (xxii.  2)  ;  13  (xxi.  5)  ;  16  (xv.  6,  xxi.  3). 


212  APPENDIX. 

/.  PETER, 

(31  Citations.) 
Chapter 

I.  2  (iii.  6)  ;  2,  19,  20  (xi.  4)  ;  3>  4  (xii.  i)  ;  5  (iii-  6)  ;  5> 

9  (xvii.  i);  18  (xvi.  i)  ;  19,  20  (viii.  i). 
II.  2  (xiv,  i) ;  5  (xvi.  6,  xxi.  3)  ;  7,  8  (v.  6)  ;   8  (iii.  7)  ;  9 
(xvi.  2)  ;   II   (xiii.  2)  ;   12  (xvi.  2)  ;   13  (xxiii.  2)  ;   13, 
14  (xix.  4,  xxiii.  i)  ;   13,  14,  16  (xx.  4,  xxiii.  4)  ;   15 
(xvi.  2)  ;   16  (xx.  3)  ;   17  (xxiii.  4). 

III.  7  (xxi.  6)  ;  8-12  (xix.  6)  ;  18  (viii.  2,  7)  ;   19  (xxxii.  ij  ; 

21  (xxvii.  3). 

IV.  2  (xxii.  7).     Chap.  V.  7  (xii.  i). 


//.  PETER, 

(18  Citations.) 

I.  3,  5,  10,  II  (xvi.  3)  ;  4,  5,  10,  II   (xviii.  2)  ;   5-10  (xvi. 
2)  ;   10  (iii.  8  [twice],  xvii.  i,  xviii.  3)  ;   19  (i.  i)  ;   19, 
21  (i.  4)  ;  20,  21  (i.  9);  21  (i.  3). 
II.   I,  10,  II  (xxiii.  4)  ;  4  (viii.  4,  xxxiii.  i)  ;   19  (xx.  3). 
III.   II,  14  (xxxiii.  3) ;  16  (i.  7) ;  18  (xiii.  3). 


/.    JOHN, 

(46  Citations.) 

I.  3  (xxvi.  i)  ;  5  (iii,   i) ;  6,^  (xviii.  3)  ;  7,  9  (xi-  S)  ;  8, 

10  (vi.  5)  ;  9  (xv.  6)  ;    10  (xiii.  2). 
II.   1,2  (viii.  8,  xi.  5,  xviii.  3)  ;  3  (xviii.  i,  2)  ;  3,  4,  7,  8 
(xix.  5)  ;  3,  5  (xvi.  2)  ;   16  (v.  4)  ;   19  (iii.  6,  xvii.  2)  ; 
20,  27  (i.  5) ;  27  (xvii.  2). 

III.  2  (ix.  5)  ;  2,  3  (xviii.  3)  ;  4  (vi.  6)  ;  9  (xvii.  1,2,  xviii. 

4);  14  (xviii.  2);   14,  18,   19,  21,  24  (xviii.   i);   16 
(viii.  7)  ;    16-18  (xxvi.  i)  ;    17  (xxvi.  2). 

IV.  8,  16  (ii.  i);   13  (xviii.  3)  ;   18  (xx.  i). 

V.  4  (xiii.  3)  ;  4,  5  (xiv.  3) ;  7  (ii-  3)  ;  9  (i-  4)  ;  10  (xiv.  2) ; 
12  (x.  3  [twice])  ;  13  (xviii.  i,  3)  ;  14  (xxi.  3,  4)  ;  16 
(xxi.  4) ;  20  (viii.  2). 


APPENDIX.  213 

//.    JOHN. 
Verses 

9-1 1  (x.  4)  ;   10,  II  (xx.  4  [twice]). 
JUDE. 

(9  Citations.) 

4  (iii.  7)  ;  6  (viii.  4,  xxxiii.  i)  ;  6,  7  (xxxii.  i)  ;  8-1 1 
(xxiii.  4)  ;  20-21  (xvi.  3)  ;  23  (xix.  3,  xxx.  3)  ;  24 
(ix.   5). 

REVELATION, 

(27  Citations.) 
Chapter 

I.  3  (xxi.  5)  ;   10  (xxi.  7). 

II.  2,  14,  15,  20  (xx.  4)  ;  4  (xvii.  3)  ;  the  whole  chapter 

(xxv.  4,  5). 

III.  9(xx.  4)  ;  12  (xii.  1)  ;  the  whole  chapter  (xxv.  4,  5). 

IV.  8  (ii.  I  [twice])  ;  11  (ii.  2).     Chap.  V.  12-14  (ii*  2). 
VII.  9  (xxv.  2).     Chap.  XII.  6,  14  (xxv.  4). 

XIII.  6  (xxv.  6)  ;    8  (viii.  6)  ;    12,  16,   17  (xx.  2)  ;    15-17 

(xxiii.  4). 

XIV.  13  (xxi.  4). 

XVII.  12,  16,  17  (xx.  4)  ;  14,  16  (xviii.  2). 
XVIII.  2  (xxv.  5).  Chap.  XIX.  10  (xxi.  2). 
XXII.   18,  19  (i.  2)  ;  20  (xxxiii.  3). 

Summary  of  Citations  from  the  New  Testament. 

I.   The  Gospels Matthew 109  ] 

f^}^ ^8'^ 

Luke 41  I 

John 80  J 

II.  Acts 92 

III.  General  Epistles James 21 


1  Peter  31  \  .^ 

2  Peter 18  [^9 

1  John 46  j        I- 128 

2  John 3  M9 

3  John o  )        I 

Jude 9  J 

IV.  Revelation  27 


495 


I30 


■66; 


214  APPENDIX. 

V.  Pauline  Epistles  : 

A.  Earliest  Group.  . . Romans 185 

1  Corinthians  ...    88 

2  Corinthians  ...   38  1  ^ 
Galatians S3  \ 

1  Thessalonians.    1 1 

2  Thessalonians.    15  J 

B.  Epistles    of    Im- 

prisonment. .  .Ephesians 81  1 

PhiHppians 18  1 

Colossians    311 

Philemon oj 

C.  Pastoral  Epistles . .  i  Timothy 30  ) 

2  Timothy 13  v    63 

Titus 20  ) 

D.  Hebrews 84 


Summary  of  Citations  from  the  Bible. 

I.  The  Old  Testament 

II.   I.  The  Gospels 248  ) 

2.  Other  apostolic  writings 247  \ 

III.  Pauline  writings 667 


431 
495 


Total  citations Ij593 


Date  Due 


^^M*m- 


fcK'Oi':!'?-^?,^^,,  .; 


